Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(2)BomCR883
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The activities of Monsanto:Monsanto Chemicals of India Ltd. ('Monsanto') is engaged in the formulation of herbicides. Those formulations are sold under the brand names of Machete, Lasso, Roundup and Avadex. The active ingredients in these herbicides are Butachlor, Alachlor, Glyphosate and Triallate. The concentrated active ingredient is manufactured in the U.S. and is imported into India. Monsanto has a factory at Silvassa in which the process of formulation is carried out - a process by which an active ingredient concentrate is diluted to a level or form at which it can be used by the consumer. Monsanto has been in the market in India since 1973 or thereabout. The Central Insecticides Board, a regulatory body constituted under the Insecticides Act, 1968, has accorded statutory approval. Between 1970 and 1999, Monsanto had a factory at Lonavala. The Plant at Lonavala was closed in 1999. A new plant was established at Silvassa in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE23D DAY OF MARCH20152ND CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 7597 of 2015 (Y) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- V.GOVINDAN KUTTY, MANAGING PARTNER, DIVYA METAL INDUSTRIES (HOT MIX PLANT), NATTYANCHIRA, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.RESIDING AT VELLAMKANDATH HOUSE, ENGAKKAD P.O., WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI KUM.ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. CHELAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR - 680 587.2. THE SECRETARY, CHELAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR - 680 587. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2303-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rvs. WP(C).No. 7597 of 2015 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------ EXT. P1 - TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 04.11.13 ENTERED INTO ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5874-5875 OF2015(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS. 1624-25 OF2014 MOHAN SINGH & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.1 Leave granted. 2 The legal nodus that arise in the present Appeals before us are whether the existing canteen at Moradabad Division of the Northern Railway i.e., the subject Canteen, is located in a Factory within the meaning of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948; and consequently, whether the services of the staff employed in the subject Canteen ought to be regularized. These Appeals have been preferred against the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of New Delhi in LPA No.19 of 2012, whereby the Orders passed in Writ Petition No.6582 of 2003 and Review Petition No.670 of 2011 have been set aside and it has been held that the subject Canteen is a Non Recognized and Non Statutory canteen. 3 We shall brie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1969Mad155; (1969)ILLJ586Mad
Natesan, J. 1. In these cases we are concerned with the true scope of the definition of 'factory' in Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (Central Act 34 of 1948) and whether the tanneries in question in these cases would come under that definition of 'factory'. For the tanneries it is contended that they do not, while the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, contends that they do fall under the definition of 'factory' in the Act. A brief reference to the circumstance under which the question arises for determination is necessary at this stage for a proper appreciation of the problem.2. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1166 of 1962 owns a tannery at Ranipet in North Arcot District, wherein the several processes of tanning of hides and skins are carried on by manual labour. The premises where the tanning is carried on are enclosed with walls and within the premises the raw and dried skins and hides undergo various processes, such as soaking, lining, unhai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC234
ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of an application filed by the employees of Associated Industries (Assam) Spinning Unit, Chandrapur, a unit of National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Ltd. [NTC (WBABO) Ltd.] under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the Employees' State Insurance Court at Gauhati (hereinafter referred to as “the ESI Court”). The case of the employees (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent-employees”) was that they were not required to make a contribution for the Employees' State Insurance Scheme which had been made applicable to them after the increase of the ceiling for applicability of the Act from Rs 1600 per month to Rs 3000 per month on the ground that the medical benefits which they were enjoying earlier on the basis of the NTC (WBABO) Ltd. Medical Rules were more advantageous to them than the bene...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)438; [1996(74)FLR2652]; JT1996(9)SC533; 1996(6)SCALE751; (1996)10SCC740; [1996]Supp5SCR431; 1996(3)SLJ136(SC); [1997]104STC94(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made on January 23, 1995 in OA No. 3/92. The admitted position is that the appellant was appointed to Tamil Nadu State Police Services by direct recruitment on October 7, 1979. He was transferred and posted as D.C.P., Law & Order, Madras (South) which is a cadre post, w.e.f. July 27, 1980 and ever since he had been continuously officiating in the cadre post. He was included in the select, list for the first time, on October 26, 1979 approved by the UPSC on December 12, 1979. the same list was continued for the year 1980. But in the select list for the year 1981, he was not included for want of requisite vacancy allot table to the State cadre. Consequently, he came to be included again on December 16, 1982 in the select list approved by the UPSC on March 28, 1983. When his seniority was determined, the order of al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC400; (1997)11SCC237
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. These matters arise under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (1 of 1959). The assessment years are 1986-87 and 1987-88. The assessment orders were made in respect of these two years on 3-3-1988 and 15-2-1989 respectively. A notice under Section 16 of the Act proposing to reopen the assessments in respect of the said two assessment years was issued on 14-7-1993 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Karaikudi. The contention of the asses-see is that this notice is beyond five years prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act and hence barred. The notice is undoubtedly issued beyond five years but the respondent's case is that it is not barred because of the provisions contained in Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 16. For appreciating the respondent's contention, a few facts need to be noted : By GOMs No. 637 dated 7-6-1982 read with Notification No. II(1)/ CTRE/116/77 dated 16-4-1977, the Government of Tamil Nadu conferred upon the E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC531; [2005(107)FLR1143]; [2006(1)JCR15(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC213; RLW2006(2)SC1244; 2005(9)SCALE73; (2005)8SCC747; 2006(2)SLJ390(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') praying for grant of arrears of pay and pension.2. The factual background is as follows:The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on September 13, 1978. On March 30, 1987 he was arrested in a criminal case for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The appellant was convicted by the trial Court. However, his appeal was accepted by the High Court and he was acquitted vide order dated March 26, 1992. The appellant alleges that he was released from the Jail on April 4, 1992 and that he had reported to his Unit along with a copy of the judgment on the next day. He further stated that he was reinstated on the strength of such acquittal and continued in service, but his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(12)SCALE656; (2009)10SCC531; 2009(9)LC4474(SC)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This batch of ten appeals by special leave raises identical issues and emanates from a common order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Meerut Division, Meerut and, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of each appeal as narration of facts in Civil Appeal No. 3058 of 2008 would suffice for deciding the controversy raised in this group of appeals.3. On January 24, 2002, the Additional Collector (Finance/Revenue) (for short, `Prescribed Authority'), Gautambudh Nagar issued a notice under Section 9(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, `Act, 1960') calling upon the appellants to file details of the land held by them in Ceiling Land Holding Form No. 2 (for short, `CLH Form-2') along with enclosures within a period of thirty days from the date of notice.4. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice under Section 9(2), the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT644; (1998)IIILLJ450AP
Motilal B. Naik, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the VST Industries Canteen Workers' Union represented by its Secretary P. Navaneetham seeking a mandamusdirecting the first respondent to treat the members of the petitioner-Union who are the employees of the Canteeen, established under Section 46of the Factories Act by the first respondent, as the employees of the first respondent-Company and seeks a consequential direction to tender all monetary and other benefits accrued and acquired by treating them as employees of the first respondent.2. The claim of the petitioner is that it is a union registered under Trade Unions Act vide Regd. No. B. 1421 and by their resolution dated April 19, 1992 authorised the Secretary Sri P. Navaneetham to file the present writ petition seeking a direction to direct the respondents to treat the canteen workers and the members of the petitioners-Union numbering 65 (the said list is described in Annexure-I of the material papers) as the employees of the...
Tag this Judgment!