Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: coking coal mines nationalisation act 1972 section 18 provident fund Page 27 of about 4,806 results (0.204 seconds)

Oct 22 1991 (SC)

M/S. Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs. Haryana State Board and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1992SC224; (1991)3CompLJ377(SC); JT1991(4)SC220; 1991(2)SCALE913; (1992)1SCC418; [1991]Supp1SCR523; 1992(1)LC7(SC)

..... .13. coal (including coke) industry.14. power (thermal and diesel) generating industry.15. processing of animal or vegetable products industry.4. the concerned assessing authorities have in all the cases under consideration issued notices ..... schedule i. there are 15 entries in schedule i and they read as follows:schedule i(see section 2(c))1. ferrous metallurgical industry.2. non-ferrous metallurgical industry.3. mining industry.4. ore processing industry.5. petroleum industry.6. petrol-chemical industry.7. chemical industry.8. ceramic industry.9. cement industry.10. textile industry.11. paper industry.12. fertilizer industry .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 1997 (HC)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamla Rani and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1997ACJ1081; (1997)117PLR302

..... a public place is a statutory duty cast on the insurance companies. as already observed, the business of general insurance including motor vehicle insurance was nationalised in the year 1972 and the government has taken over the business of general insurance including the motor vehicle insurance. therefore, the insurance companies ..... 33. every policy issued is required to be registered in the records. every insurance company shall maintain the record and under the general insurance business (nationalisation) act, 1972, the central govt. has got the power to issue directions and the central government also have got the power to control over ..... clear that the government of india has taken over general insurance business including motor vehicle insurance business. therefore, after coming into force of general insurance business (nationalisation) act, 1972, all the business of general insurance came under the monopoly of the central government. under section 35 of the said act, the provisions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1970 (SC)

Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1970SC564; [1970]40CompCas325(SC); (1970)1SCC248; [1970]3SCR530

..... the government in regard to the affairs of the undertakings covered by the statutes. these are the bank of england act, 1946, cotton (centralised buying) act, 1947, coal industry nationalisation act, 1946, civil aviation act, 1946, electricity act, 1947, gas act, 1948, iron and steel act, 1949 and air corporations act, 1949. it is ..... was required to be shown. the statement of objects and reasons shows that there was considerable speculation in the country regarding government's intention with regard to 'nationalisation' of banks during few days immediately before the ordinance. in the case of barium chemical's [1966] supp. s.c.r. 311 it was said ..... question is the legislative competence in regard to the act of 1969. counsel for the petitioner contended that the act was for nationalisation of banks and there was no legislative entry regarding nationalisation and therefore that was incompetent. there is no merit in that contention. the act is for acquisition of property; the undertaking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1999 (HC)

Premji Khanji Masani Vs. United India Insurance Co. and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1999)3GLR2604

..... the appellant is produced on the record of the case at annexure-b to the petition. in exercise of powers conferred by section 17-a of the general insurance business (nationalisation) act, 1972, the central government has made a scheme called 'general insurance' (employees') pension scheme, 1995 ('pension scheme' for short). the pension scheme has come into force on 1st day .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2005 (HC)

Ram Kishun Son of Sri Siddh Gopal, Vs. State of U.P.,

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : I(2006)DMC420

K.N. Ojha, J.1. Heard Sri Shamsher Singh, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and have gone through the record.2. Instant application has been moved by Ram Kishun, S/o Siddh Gopal, Siddh Gopal, Smt. Mithania, W/o Siddh Gopal and Ram Sanehi, all residents of Village Pailani Dera, police station Pailani, district Banda, Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to quash order dated 20.10.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Banda, whereby application moved by O.P. No. 3, Ram Kishore, under Section 156(3) of the Code was allowed and direction was made to the Station Officer, police station Jaspura to make investigation in the case crime No. C-5 of 2005 Under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. police station Pailani, district Banda, and to submit report. The further request has been made to Stay the arrest of the applicants during pendency of the investigation.3. The fact of the case as disclosed from the rec...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 2007 (HC)

J.L. Morrison India Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies A ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR358; 2007(5)BomCR654; (2007)109BOMLR1731; [2007(115)FLR761]; (2008)ILLJ775Bom; 2007(6)MhLj393

..... insurance for discharge of the liability of payment of gratuity. the section 5 deals with the power of the appropriate government to exempt any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop from the applicability of the said act. the section 6 empowers the employees to appoint their respective nominees ..... commencement thereof. it applies to every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company. it also applies to every establishment and shop wherein ten or more persons are employed on any day of preceding 12 ..... therefrom the operation of section 5 of the limitation act.9. the said act deals with the subject of gratuity payable to the employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments. the section 1 of the said act speaks of its title, its extent of applicability and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2009 (HC)

Grand Chemical Works Vs. the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fu ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : (2010)ILLJ131Del

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 23/10/1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 in appeal against the order dated 23/6/1998 passed by the respondent no 2 under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and order dated 14.12.1998 on review application passed by respondent No. 1 and demand raised by respondent No. 2 on the basis of impugned order dated 23/6/1998.2. The brief conspectus of the facts as set out in the petition are as under:3. The present petitioner M/s Grand Chemical Works, C-21/2, Mayapuri, Ph.II, New Delhi-110064 was covered with effect from 30.04.1996 under scheduled head 'Heavy and fine Chemicals' vide EPF office establishment No. E/DL/17749/Coverage/1281 dated 5.6.1996. The establishment was directed to report compliance with effect from 1.5.96. Instead of reporting compliance, the establishment challenged the applicabi...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2009 (HC)

Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commi ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 163(2009)DLT148

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. This order shall dispose of the Writ petitions bearing Nos. 3850/1992 and 3887/1993. WPC No. 3850/1992 is taken as the lead case.2. By way of these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 28/5/1992 in WPC No. 3850/1992 and order dated 17/5/1993 in WPC No. 3887/1993 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi under Section 14B of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.3. The brief conspectus of the facts relevant for deciding the present petitions is as under:The petitioner were required to pay P.F. and P.P.F. Contributions, Insurance Fund Contributions and Administrative charges payable under Sections 6, 6A and 6C of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and under the provisions of EPF Scheme, 1952 and EDLI Scheme, 1976. Since the employers failed to pay the said contributions and administrative charges due as required by law for...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 1998 (HC)

Air India Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity A ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR428; (1999)IILLJ93Bom

..... sections 13 and 14 of the payment of gratuity act, 1972 which read as under:'13. protection of gratuity. no gratuity payable to an employee employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oil field, plantation, port, railway company or shop exempted under section 5 shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1984 (HC)

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamilnadu Vs. the South Indi ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1985)ILLJ283Mad

..... the supreme court itself. mr. narayanaswamy therefore contended that the judgment of mohan, j., is in keeping with the law laid down by the supreme court in the coal mines provident fund commissioner's case (supra), and even though padmanabhan, j., followed the decision of the supreme court in the organo chemical industries case (supra), his ..... eleven months, then after the twelfth month the damages are 100 per cent. of the amount of arrears. the learned counsel contended that as held in the coal mines provident fund commissioner's case (supra), the words 'as it may think fit' contemplate an application of mind and the provident fund commissioner has to apply his ..... cent.' showed that the determination of damages is not an inflexible application of a rigid formula. the contention appears to be that in its decision under the coal mines provident fund and bonus schemes act, the supreme court has not referred to the provisions as contemplating any penalty and as a matter of fact, the said .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //