Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

VRS CAN BE REFUSED IF THE EMPLOYEE IS EFFICIENT AND CABABLE !!!


The management of a bank can deny the request for voluntary retirement if it considers the officer very efficient and wants to keep him. In this case decided by the SC last week, Indian Overseas Bank vs Tribhuvan Nath, the officer joined as a clerk but due to exceptional merit and dedication to the bank, he was promoted fast and posted abroad in managerial posts. However, he applied for voluntary retirement. The bank rejected his application. He challenged the action in the Allahabad high court. It held the bank’s decision arbitrary and even mala fide

The bank appealed to the SC. It upheld the discretion of the bank in accepting or rejecting the application according to the scheme. The bank can shed staff with inferior abilities, while it can retain officers of superior merit. No organisation would like to lose its best people, the SC said while quashing the high court decision. This officer retired before the judgment.

Thus , drafters should keep in mind in the VRS agreement to include a clause 
The VRS cannot be opt by all the eligible employees. If bank thinks a particular employee as an efficient and capable , bank may disregard his request for VRS.


Friday, January 28, 2011

Every director not liable in cheque dishonor case -Supreme Court held in National Small Industries Corporation vs Harmeet Singh

The Supreme Court reiterated that every director connected with a company could not be held liable in a case of cheque which was dishonored for want of sufficient funds in the bank. Only those who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will be liable for criminal action, the court said in the case, National Small Industries Corporation vs Harmeet Singh. A mere bald statement that a particular director among many was responsible for the conduct of the business would not be sufficient to clamp vicarious liability on him.