whether an application under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act” or the “Act”), at the instance of a borrower, is maintainable even before physical or actual possession of secured assets is taken by banks/financial institutions in exercise of their powers under section 13(4) of the Act read with rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “2002 Rules”)

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10873 OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.5895 OF 2018] M/S HINDON FORGE PVT. LTD. & ANR. …APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GHAZIABAD & ANR. …RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10874 OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL)… Read More whether an application under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act” or the “Act”), at the instance of a borrower, is maintainable even before physical or actual possession of secured assets is taken by banks/financial institutions in exercise of their powers under section 13(4) of the Act read with rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “2002 Rules”)

whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee 4 suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7470 OF 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Smt. Sujatha …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the High… Read More whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee 4 suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

“break in service” as a new ground for punishment in the Certified Standing Orders can not be added = The Division Bench, in our considered opinion, rightly concluded that a “break in service” cannot be allowed as a ground by way of punishment in Clause 16 of the Chapter of Punishment in Certified Standing Orders for the following reasons: 8 13. Firstly, the existing grounds enumerated in Clause 16 by way of punishment are sufficient to take care of any misconduct committed by any employee and there appears no reason to introduce one more new ground in the existing grounds specified in Clause 16 for imposing a new punishment. 14. Secondly, the proposed ground, if allowed, would likely to be misused by the employer against its employees for their own benefit and detrimental to the employees’ interest. 15. Thirdly, it would enable the employer to take action against its employees even in a situation where an employee is found absent even for a day and such absence will be treated as “break in service” under the Certified Standing Orders and also under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It will, therefore, be in conflict with the definition of the 9 expression “continuous service” defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act which gives different modes of calculation for determining the continuous service for payment of gratuity amount. 16. Fourthly, such ground will, therefore, defeat the very object of the Payment of Gratuity Act which is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees and lastly, it is neither bona fide nor reasonable and nor required and hence it cannot be allowed. 17. In our opinion, we find no good ground to differ with the reasoning assigned by the Division Bench mentioned above for rejecting the application made by the appellant (employer) for adding, “break in service” as a new ground for punishment in the Certified Standing Orders. The reasons given by the Division Bench, in our view, deserve to be upheld.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1977 OF 2010 THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI RAMNARAYAN MILLS LTD. .. Appellant(s) Versus SECRETARY COIMBATORE DISTRICT TEXTILE WORKERS UNION(HMS) AND ORS. .. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the final… Read More “break in service” as a new ground for punishment in the Certified Standing Orders can not be added = The Division Bench, in our considered opinion, rightly concluded that a “break in service” cannot be allowed as a ground by way of punishment in Clause 16 of the Chapter of Punishment in Certified Standing Orders for the following reasons: 8 13. Firstly, the existing grounds enumerated in Clause 16 by way of punishment are sufficient to take care of any misconduct committed by any employee and there appears no reason to introduce one more new ground in the existing grounds specified in Clause 16 for imposing a new punishment. 14. Secondly, the proposed ground, if allowed, would likely to be misused by the employer against its employees for their own benefit and detrimental to the employees’ interest. 15. Thirdly, it would enable the employer to take action against its employees even in a situation where an employee is found absent even for a day and such absence will be treated as “break in service” under the Certified Standing Orders and also under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It will, therefore, be in conflict with the definition of the 9 expression “continuous service” defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act which gives different modes of calculation for determining the continuous service for payment of gratuity amount. 16. Fourthly, such ground will, therefore, defeat the very object of the Payment of Gratuity Act which is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees and lastly, it is neither bona fide nor reasonable and nor required and hence it cannot be allowed. 17. In our opinion, we find no good ground to differ with the reasoning assigned by the Division Bench mentioned above for rejecting the application made by the appellant (employer) for adding, “break in service” as a new ground for punishment in the Certified Standing Orders. The reasons given by the Division Bench, in our view, deserve to be upheld.