Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(5)BomCR884; (2006)IIILLJ441Bom; 2006(4)MhLj339
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.2. Petitioner herein is the proprietor running the business of manufacture and sale of Bidis, having the business location at Kamptee in Nagpur district. Petitioner claims that he employs only ten Bidi-roller home workers, and has two workmen employed to do miscellaneous jobs titled as Tendurwala-curh-Clerk and Relaiwala, who work in the business premises. The petition has been aimed to challenge application of provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act to the petitioner's factory, in particular, and generally to challenge the amended Section 2(12), i.e., definition of 'Factory' and consequential notifications. The prayers read as follows:(i) strike down the impugned Notification No. S-38012/6/89-SS-l dated 20-10-1989 issued by the Central Government vis-a-vis the bidi industry in general and the petitioner in particular as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;(ii) strike down the impugned Notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE10H DAY OF JULY201519TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 27706 of 2011 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KANNAN NAMBIAR, MULLAPPALY KOKKUNNATH HOUSE, PAPPINISSERY, NEAR PUTHIYAKAV, PAPPINISSERY WEST P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA ADVOCATES' CLERKS WELFARE FUND COMMITTEE, TC26580 (1) SERA24 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS, SECRETARY - 695 001.2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001. R1 BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SRI.M.A.ASIF R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1007-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ WP(C).No. 27706 of 2011 (K) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 WP(C). No. 18530 of 2012 (M) --------------------------- PETITIONER): ---------- M.K. SASIKUMAR, AGED 4 YEARS SREENILAYAM.P.O., PEERMADE.P.O., PEERMADE-685531. BY ADV. SMT. A.K. PREETHA RESPONDENT: ---------- DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-12-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 18549/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C). No. 18530 of 2012 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE SHERISTADAR, DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA. EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK'S ASSOCIATION PEERMADE DATED 23 12-2010 TO THE SHERISTADAR, DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA. EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 9766(4) 11 DATED 27 3-2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPON...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)3GLR2508
H.K. Rathod, J.1. By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of transfer dated 30th October, 2000 transferring him from the present position to Rajpipla. At the time of admission hearing on 3rd November, 2000, this Court had issued notice to the respondents and thereby granted status quo to be maintained till 8th November, 2000. The order of status quo has subsequently been extended from time to time till the date of hearing the present writ petition.2. In the present petition, the respondent No. 4 has filed affidavit-in-reply. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have also filed reply against the main Special Civil Application. Against both the documents, the petitioner has filed detailed rejoinder countering the averments made therein. Civil Application No. 10349 of 2000 has been filed by the respondent No. 4 for vacating the ex pane interim relief granted by this Court on 3rd November, 2000. Against the said Civil Application, the petitioner has a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1988)1GLR589
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The Gujarat State Legislature enacted the Gujarat Mineral Rights Tax Act, 1985 (Gujarat Act 19 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act' or 'the impugned Legislation') to provide for the levy and collection of tax on mineral rights of holders of mining leases in respect of certain minerals in the State of Gujarat specified in the Schedule. The Act received the assent of the Governor of Gujarat on 2nd August, 1985 and was first published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 3rd August, 1985. By a notification dated 29th October, 1985 issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 1, the State Government brought the Act into force with effect from 1st November, 19852. The petitioners of this group of Writ Petitions arc holders of mining leases granted by the State of Gujarat under provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act, 67 of 1957) (hereinafter called 'the Central Act') read with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.JUDGMENT :1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bobbili by judgment dated 26.02.2003 in C.C. No.282 of 1996 acquitted the respondents 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 of the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. A-1 and A-2 are brothers. A-1 is a licensed stamp vendor of Sitanagaram. He was conducting sale of stamps in a bunk abutting compound wall of Sub-Registrar's office, Bobbili. A-3 and A-4 are alleged to be close associates of A-1. It is alleged that on 27.11.1996 after closing the transactions, sale proceeds of the stamps to the tune of Rs.43,247/- was secured in cash chest of the Sub-Registrar's office, Bobbili and it was kept in steel almirah in the record room as 28.01.1996 happened to be a Sunday which is a holiday. It is alleged that on 29.01.1996 at about 6.30 A.M when P.W-2 who is sweeper of that office went to the office premises for sweeping the same, she found main door in open condition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)MhLj572
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Manohar, learned counsel for petitioner No . 1, Shri Mohokar, learned counsel for petitioner No. 2, Shri Sonare, AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Kukday, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - Intervenor.2. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983, and certain sections thereof on the ground that the field is already occupied by provisions of Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, (Act No. 32 of 1966) and further the Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976, (Act No. 56 of 1976). The above referred Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983, will hereinafter be referred to as Maharashtra Act while the Act No. 32 of 1966, will be referred to as Act of 1966 and the Act No. 56 of 1976 will be referred to as Act of 1976, in short.3. The petition is filed by 10 petitioners, who are stated to be companies or firms engaged in manufacturing of beedi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Cav Order 1. Superb question of law involved in this batch of writ petitions is whether the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is justified in holding that Commission Vendors engaged by the petitioner/its predecessors-in-interest for selling its food products can be considered to be its employees for the purpose of Section 2 (f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF Act'). 2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed these writ petitions questioning the order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') dated 11-5-2011 (Annexure P-1) in all the four writ petitions by which the Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur, deciding the applicability dispute and consequently, determining the amount due under Section 7A of the EPF Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT558
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three petitions are being disposed of by this common order inasmuch as they arise out of the order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the State Commission, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. CC-09/2006. A complaint had been filed by the complainant (respondent No. 1 in these petitions) with regard to unsolicited commercial communications being received by her on her mobile phone. Taking note of the plight of the complainant, the State Commission observed that a similar problem is being faced by a large number of people who own mobile phones and that the unsolicited commercial communications, which include short message service (SMS) communications as well as calls are a growing menace. The petitioner in WP(C) 583/2007 is an association of cellular operators. It has taken the stand on behalf of all the cellular operators, which include Bharti Airtel along with other member cellular operators.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the directions / orders passed by the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2000)IILLJ590Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated August 30, 1989, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court (Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 4 of 1986.2. The respondent, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, sent a notice to the appellant on June 17, 1985, informing that the Government has extended the provisions of the Act to other establishments under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), with effect from May 14, 1978, vide Notification No. 360, dated May 2, 1978, and the appellant's-establishment would also come under the said notification and liable to pay contribution, to which, the appellant herein sent a reply on July 11, 1985, stating that the G.O. Ms. No. 360, dated May 2, 1978, is not applicable to the appellant's-establishment. The appellant-establishment is neither a 'shop' nor an 'establishment' as described in the said Government order and thereby de...
Tag this Judgment!