Advanced Search Results

K. Chinnusamy and ors. Vs. S.S. Dye Chem

Court : Chennai

Subject : Company

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 141, 141(1), 141(2) and 142; ;Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 278B; ; Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Section 22C; ;Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 86A; ;Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 14A; ;Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - Section 29; ;Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 40; ;Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 47; ;Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2(24), 2(26), 2(30), 2(31), 2(45), 5 and 291; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Section 420; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482

Reported in : [2010]155CompCas228(Mad)

with offences by companies, to mention a few--Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Section 86A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions

K.K. Ahuja Vs. V.K. Vora and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 141, 141(1) and 141(2); Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2(24), 2(45), 5 and 291; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 278B; Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Sections 22C; Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 86A; Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 14A; Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - Sections 29; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 40; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sections 47

Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2897; 2009(4)BomCR558; [2009]152CompCas520(SC); JT2009(8)SC691; 2010(1)MPHT164; 2009(II)OLR(SC)292; RLW2009(9)SC2275; 2009(9)SCALE87; (2009)10SCC48; [2009]94SCL; 2009(4)LHSC2621; [2009] 9 SCR 1144

by companies, to mention a few - Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 22C of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Section 86A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, Section 14A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

Dayle De Souza Vs. Government Of India Thr. Deputy Chief Labour Commis ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Education

Vinod Singh, Madhya Pradesh head of M/s. Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. alleging non-compliance with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act’) and Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 (for short, ‘the Rules’) at the ATM. On … the offence is alleged to have been committed.9. However, in the context of the present appeal, it is Section 22C of the Act which is of more relevance which reads thus: “22C. Offences by companies. - (1) If

Prestige Educational Trust vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Section 34 in the said Act (which is pari materia with the explanation in Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948) to observe that for the purpose of imposing liability on the company under the said Section, a company

Prestige Educational Trust vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Section 34 in the said Act (which is pari materia with the explanation in Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948) to observe that for the purpose of imposing liability on the company under the said Section, a company

Prestige Educational Trust vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Section 34 in the said Act (which is pari materia with the explanation in Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948) to observe that for the purpose of imposing liability on the company under the said Section, a company

Prestige Educational Trust vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Section 34 in the said Act (which is pari materia with the explanation in Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948) to observe that for the purpose of imposing liability on the company under the said Section, a company

Prestige Education Trust vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Section 34 in the said Act (which is pari materia with the explanation in Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948) to observe that for the purpose of imposing liability on the company under the said Section, a company

Prestige Educational Trust vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Section 34 in the said Act (which is pari materia with the explanation in Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948) to observe that for the purpose of imposing liability on the company under the said Section, a company

Maya Chandra and ors. Vs. the Inspector, Minimum Wages Office and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 1979CriLJ534

directed against the issue of summons by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly, under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 against the petitioners. Upon a complaint being filed by the Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act, the present … the petitioners is that the partnership firm itself has not been made a party accused in the case. Section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act describes ''a Company' as a body corporate which includes a firm or association