Advanced Search Results
Bhajanlal Padia Vs. Bajinath @ Bajnath Majhi and ors.
Orissa
Apr-18-1986
Labour and IndustrialCivil
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 2, 3, 12, 12(1) 14, 19(1), 19(2), 22 and 30 - Rule 20(2); Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 95
62(1986)CLT13; 1986(I)OLR607
P.K. Pattnayak, Adv. for respondent No. 1, ;M. Sinha, Adv. for respondent No. 3 and ;Md. Yusuf, Adv. for respondent No. 2
S.C. Mohapatra, J. 1. Within the limited scope of consideration of substantial question of law, this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in short, 'the Act') arises out of an order of...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGitanjali Gajanan Tendulkar Vs. Gajanan Dinkar Tendulkar
Mumbai
Sep-08-1988
Family
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 26; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125
1989(1)BomCR334; I(1990)DMC59; 1989MhLJ371
K.S. Mody, Adv., i/b., Arvind Nagvekar & Co.
H. Suresh, J.1. In a matrimonial petition filed by the wife as against the husband on the ground of desertion and cruelty the wife took out a notice of motion for interim maintenance and for costs....
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskShri Eknath P. Kamble Vs. Smt. Janqui Nilu Kamble and Shri Marcel D'Cu ...
Mumbai
Mar-21-2009
Labour and Industrial
Workmen's Compensation Act - Sections 12; Workmen's Compensation Rules - Rule 28
2009(5)BomCR395
A.V. Nigalye, Adv. for the Respondent No. 1 and ;G.K. Sardessai, Adv. for the Respondent No. 2
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the opposite party No. 1 against the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, are as follows:The respondent No. 1's...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Braja Kishore Sutar and anr.
Orissa
Feb-15-1991
Labour and Industrial
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 32; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 14, Rules 1 and 28
1992ACJ715; 73(1992)CLT815; (1993)ILLJ85Ori; 1991(I)OLR246
B. Padhi and ;A.K. Mohapatra, Advs.
Hansaria, C.J.1. The question referred to this Bench is whether Rule 28 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 (shortly called 'the Rules') is mandatory. The question has been referred because of different views taken by this...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›