Now or never

An employee opted for the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS). Later, when he wished to withdraw his option before the cut-off date, he was not permitted to do so and was relieved from service. The employee filed a writ petition praying for reinstatement. The employer bank contended that it had credited monetary benefits of the scheme to the employee’s account and in terms of the provisions of the VRS the employee utilised the benefits to adjust loans and make investments. The Supreme Court held that once an employee receives the benefits payable under the scheme and utilises the same he cannot resile from it (Punjab and Sind Bank vs Ranveer Singh Bawa).

Power of attorney

In a recent decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, upholding the order of the trial court, held that evidence of the general power of attorney-holder on behalf of the “principal” would be hearsay and not admissible. He cannot speak about the facts which are solely within the personal knowledge of the “principal”. The question arose for determination when the plaintiff wanted to examine her general power of attorney as witness on her behalf and the defendants objected to the same (S. Padmavathamma vs S. Sudharani and Ors).

Alimony above all

The wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and another for interim alimony. She obtained the alimony during the pendency of the main petition. Challenging the order of the alimony, the husband contended that the sole purpose of filing the main petition was to obtain alimony. The main petition is liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay as they did not co-habit for 30 years. The Bombay High Court held that even if the petition is not likely to succeed, it does not bar the court from granting interim alimony. In fact, in terms of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court can grant alimony even if the main petition is dismissed (Mangilal S. Mundada vs Mangla M. Mundada).

SOLON