Hemendra Bhai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Decided On : Jan-06-2003

Court : Chhattisgarh

LAW: Section 482, the Partnership Act, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, Section 14 of the Act, Section 14(1, Section 3 of the Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 190(1, Section 200, Section 190(1)(a, Chapter IX, Section 256(3, Section 16, Section 3 of the Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 2(x, Section 67, the Factories Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 3 of the Act, Section 14 of the Act

GPE: Kuranga, Bhatapara, Bidi, Proviso, Bidi, Clauses, Subhash, Prajapati, R.I., Bhatapara

ORG: M/s. Dayalal Meghji & Co., Judicial Magistrate, M/s. Dayalal Meghji & Co., The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the Labour Department of the State, S.S. Shukla, Village Datrangi, the Supreme Court, W.P. No, the High Court of Judicature, the High Court, Court, Court, the Apex Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.J.M., the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court, Court, Magistrate, the Supreme Court, AIR 1976, Pepsi Foods Ltd., Court, The Supreme Court, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, The Supreme Court, Pepsi Foods Ltd., Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, The Supreme Court, Magistrate, Magistrate, the District Collector, the Trial Court, Counsel, Register, The Proviso to Section 3, Government, Workshop, Proviso, Allahabad High Court, U.P., the Labour Enforcement, Magistrate, the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court, Court, the Labour Enforcement Officer, Court, the Appellate Court, the Enforcement Officer, Court, Divisional, Bidi, the Company of Dayal Meghji, the Allahabad High Court, Criminal Case No, Judicial Magistrate

WORK_OF_ART: Criminal Case No, 'Summoning

CARDINAL: 872, 2, 345, 3, 465, 7, 756, 4, one, 1, 20,000/-, 23-3-1998, 5, 30-4-1998, 13, 15, 8., two, 5, 749, 9, 10, 12, 13, only two, two, 15, 16, 17, two, 18, 19, 500, 700, 500, 700, one, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, one, 25, 872

DATE: 1999, 1932, last several decades, 1986, (1996, about 11 years, 1240, 1986, 1998, 1948, the age of 14 years, 14 years of age, 2002, 1223, about 11 years, 11 years, three months, 11 years, the age of 14 years, about 11 years, 400/- per month, about 11 years, 14 years, his fourteenth year of age, 14 years of age, 1999

PERSON: Hemendra Bhai, Raipur, Raipur, Badshahi Farmaish Bidi, Bidi, M.C. Mehta v. State, Tamil Nadu, Santosh Sahu, Raipur, Bidis, Bidis, Raipur, Bidi, Madhya Pradesh, Raipur, Raipur, 872/1999, Bidis, Bidis, Bidis, Lakshminarayana, V. Narayana, Anr, Surveyor, Lakshminarayana, Anr, Schedule, Schedule, Bidi, Bidi, Bidi, Bidis, Raipur, Bidis, Bidis, Bidis, Bidi, Bidi, Bidis, Bidi, Bidis, Bidis, Bidis, Bidis, Bidi, Bidis, Bidi, Bidis, Bidis, Occupier, Bidi, Chandra Jaiswal v. State, Surveyor, Santosh Sahu, Bidis, Bidis, Santosh Sahu, Bidis, Surveyor, Santosh Sahu, Santosh Sahu, Surveyor, Santosh Sahu, Surveyor, Raipur

FAC: Daya Bhai Manik, Malviya Road, Hemendra Bhai, Subhash Chandra Jaiswal

PRODUCT: these:--

NORP: D., D.

ORDINAL: first

EVENT: Section 2(vi