SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Raj) 684

SURENDRA NATH BHARGAVA
Parmatma Prasad Dwivedi – Appellant
Versus
B. J. Shahaney through his Lrs. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1.

1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Kota, confirming the judgment passed by Munsif, Kota and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant, for permanent injunction.

2. The plaintiff appellant was appointed as Chief Designer by M/s Instrumentation Limited, Kota, defendant No. 2, by an order dated 18th December, 1964 (Ex. A-2) which contained condition No. 13, Condition No. 13 runs as under:

"Not with standing anything to the contrary here in before contained, the Company reserves the right to terminate your appointment during the period of training without assigning any reason upon giving you one calendar month's notice in writing on either side;

On successful completion of your training your services will be continued, subject to satisfactory performance, and the appointment will be terminable by 3 months notice by the company or pay with allowances as admissible in lieu thereof, during the period of currency of the Bond referred to in para 10(a);

After termination of the period of the Bond, your services will be continued subject to satisfactory performance, and the appointment will be terminable by 3







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top