Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(3)KarLJ361; (1998)ILLJ92Kant
1. The appellant before us is engaged in the business of equipment leasing and merchant banking besides other objectives as provided inthe Memorandum and Articles of Association. It is claimed that they have provided a separate provident fund scheme which is duly approvedby the Commissioner of Income Tax for the purposes of Income Tax Act. In that event, they submitted that, the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 will not be attracted for, the appellant is not a trading and commercial establishment within the meaning of the notification issued under the relevant Act making it applicable to certain establishments. Under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, a notification was issued on March 7, 1962 to the effect that the said Act applies to every trading and commercial establishment employing twenty or more persons each and engaged in the purchase, sale or storage of any goods including the establishment of importers, exporters, advertisers, comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2119; 1997(4)KarLJ118
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1.The petitioner is a 5th Semester Post Graduate Student undergoing a Masters course in Agriculture engineering. He is aggrieved of a memo dated the 9th September, 1996 issued by the Registrar, of the Respondent-University, whereby his admission has been cancelled in terms of Regulation 12.1.4 of the Regulations governing post Graduate programmes on account of his failure to earn the minimum C.G.P.A. of 7 out of 10 at the end of II Semester of 1993-94. The memo reads thus ;-'The admission of Mr. R.Ramakrishna JD No. PAJ 3261 student of M.Sc.,(Ag.Engg) in Post Harvest Processing and Food engineering is treated as cancelled for not earning the minimum CGPA of 7.00 out of 10.00 at the end of II Semester of 1993-94. This is in accordance with the regulation 12.1.4 governing the Post-graduate Programme under semester system of the University.By Ordersd/-Registrar'2. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Respondent, the University has justified its ac...
Tag this Judgment!