Skip to content


Mani Subrat JaIn Vs. Raja Ram Vohra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 818 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1980SC299; (1980)1SCC1; [1980]2SCR141; 1980(12)LC60(SC)
ActsEast Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 2 and 13; Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1947 - Sections 13;
AppellantMani Subrat Jain
RespondentRaja Ram Vohra
Appellant Advocate G.L. Sanghi,; B. Dutta,; K.K. Manchanda and;
Respondent Advocate P. Govindan Nair, ; Nair and ; N. Sudhakaran, Advs.
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated April 10, 1978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 458 of 1978 (O and H)
Excerpt:
.....go in for voluntary retirement. in this background, the consideration that was to pass between the parties assumes significance and a harmonious construction to the scheme and the pension regulations, therefore, has to be given. contention of the appellant banks were rejected and it was declared that the employees who took retirement under the vrs 2000 are entitled to benefit of five years additional qualifying service under regulation 29(5). voluntary retirement scheme: [d.k. jain & r.m. lodha,jj] banks-voluntary retirement scheme, 2000 (vrs 2000) - effect of employees pension regulations, 1995 having been made part of vrs 2000 held, the precise effect of pension regulations, for the purposes of pension, having been made part f the scheme, is that the pension regulations, to the.....order9. the judgment having been delivered counsel for the respondent represented that the agreement, which has been made and appendixed to the judgment be treated as an undertaking mutually between the parties to the court. counsel on both sides have no objection to this course and so we record the agreement incorporated in the judgment as an undertaking to the court made by the parties in regard to their respective obligations.
Judgment:
ORDER

9. The Judgment having been delivered counsel for the respondent represented that the Agreement, which has been made and appendixed to the Judgment be treated as an undertaking mutually between the parties to the Court. Counsel on both sides have no objection to this course and so we record the Agreement incorporated in the judgment as an undertaking to the Court made by the parties in regard to their respective obligations.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //