Advanced Search Results

Shyam Madanmohan Ruia and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 61, 83 and 92

Reported in : [2000(84)FLR751]; (2000)ILLJ1140Bom

petitions is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director who have been prosecuted under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, could be prosecuted and held liable for not displaying notice of period of work under Section 61 of … of work under Section 61 of the Act or for not maintaining the leave arid wages register under Section 83 or not maintaining inspection book under Section 92 of the Act read with Rule 124 of the Rules.3.

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. K.K. Modi and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 62, 62(2), 83 and 92; Uttar Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950 - Rule 78 and 78(2)

Reported in : AIR1968All197; (1968)IILLJ164All

of Modi Hurricane Lantern Factory, Modinagar, Meerut from charges for breaches of Sections 52 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 78 of the U. P. Factories Rules, 1950, read with … to ensure the observance of certain rules by those who run and those who ultimately control the factory. Section 83 of the Act must also not be overlooked. It provides: '83. Power to make rules -- The State

The State Vs. Alisaheb Kashim Tamboli

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and IndustrialCriminal

Acts : Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 2, 2(1), 18(2), 18(4), 27, 34, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 59, 60, 62(1), 64, 79, 79(1), 83, 85, 85(1), 85(2), 92, 103 and 112; Factories Rules - Rules 35, 37, 94 and 95; Factories Act, 1911 - Sections 2(2); Factories (Amendment) Act, 1937 - Sections 151(4)

Reported in : AIR1955Bom209; (1955)57BOMLR135; 1955CriLJ932; ILR1955Bom624; (1955)IILLJ182Bom

of which arises from a distinct set of facts but all of which raise common questions under the Factories Act, 1948. Before setting out the questions raised, it may be convenient first to refer to the facts in each … 94 and 95 read with Rs. 83 and 112, Factories Act, thus rendering himself liable to punishment under Section 92, factories Act, 1948.3. At the trial, the complainant gave evidence, and he stated that when he visited

S.M. Datta Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 51, 54, 62, 63 and 92; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482

Reported in : [2001(89)FLR462]; (2001)IILLJ235Guj

was the Vice-Chairman of the company at the relevant time and he was admittedly the 'occupier' under the Factories Act, 1948 (the Act, for short) of the aforesaid factory of the company. The original complaints are filed in an … to be prosecuted for failure to maintain registers under Sections 62 and 83 of the Act; and the finding was that the obligation to maintain … D.H. Waghela, J.1. These Miscellaneous Criminal Applications are filed by the same petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaints and the process issued pursuant thereto in

State of Gujarat Vs. Sudhir Mehta

Court : Gujarat

Subject : CriminalLabour and Industrial

Acts : Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 40, 48, 48(1), 92, 102, 102(1) and 102(2); Gujarat Factories Rule, 1962 - Rules 48(3) and 80 to 83(A)

Reported in : 1997CriLJ3442; (1998)1GLR560

the, said 'Milton Pvt. Ltd. which had contravened the provisions contained in Sections 48(1) and 102(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'The Act') inasmuch as the women workers were not provided with and maintained a suitable room … Sudhir Mehta was the Manager of the, said 'Milton Pvt. Ltd. which had contravened the provisions contained in Sections 48(1) and 102(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'The Act') inasmuch as the women workers were … them at the necessary intervals.Rule 80 : Creches (1) Rules 80 to 83 A shall come into force in respect of any class or description

State of Gujarat Vs. Haribhai Vithalbhai Thakar

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 2, 62, 62(1), 62(1A), 73, 83, 92, 93, 94 and 105

Reported in : 1996CriLJ240; (1995)2GLR1878

the respondent-original accused Manager of the factory is liable for the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 ('Act' for short for committing violation of the provisions of Section 62(1)(a) of Factories Act and also the … power to require the register to be made available for inspection by the Factory Inspector is contained in Section 83 of the Act. Under Section 83 of the Factories Act, the State Government is empowered to make rules

Mohan Singh and Ors Vs. The Chairman Railway Board and Ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Education

the Factories Act, 1948. To answer the said question, we must examine the definition of ‘factory’ under the Factories Act, 1948. Section 2(m) - “factory” means any premises including the precincts thereof- (i) whereon ten or more workers are working, … formally taken over by the Respondent Railways with effect from 18.01.1972. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 issued Circular No.E (W) 83 CN1-8 dated 13.04.1987 laying down that prior approval of the Railway Board would be mandatory for setting up

Superintending Engineer Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (1992)(59)ELT610TriDel

it is a factory. He rejected the appellants' plea that it was not a factory under the Indian Factories Act, 1948 within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the said Act, as they had not filed any material to … being carried on only in a part of the premises. In Ramanatham v. Emperor - ILR 50 Mad. 834: (AIR 1927 Mad. 345) (A), the words "manufacturing process" do not necessarily refer to something produced but to

Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1992)(58)ELT76TriDel

has erred in drawing an inference from the mere fact that the appellants had taken licence under the Factories Act, 1948, which were due to two circumstances - (a) that when the notification under Section 83 was issued, Section

Shree Shankar Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1984)(17)ELT402TriDel

Bucket factory of the appellants at Calcutta could not be treated as a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 and as such the G.I. Buckets produced in that factory could not be charged to duty under Item … securing the said limit of Rs. 30 lakhs, the goods which were not excisable within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the said Act, could not be taken into consideration or clubbed together. According to him, their