Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC348IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5366-5367 OF2024FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA APPELLANTS LIMITED & ORS. VERSUS M/S COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................................. 2 i. Case of the original plaintiff before the trial court ...................................... 4 ii. Case of the original defendants before the trial court .................................. 6 iii. Appeals before the High Court .................................................................... 9 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS .................................................................................................... 10 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF ..........
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC101; (1991)1CompLJ1(SC); JT1990(3)SC725; 1991LabIC91; (1991)ILLJ395SC; 1991Supp(1)SCC600; [1990]Supp1SCR142; 1991(1)SLJ56(SC)
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, CJ.1. These civil appeals, special leave petitions and civil miscellaneous petitions deal with the question of constitutional validity of the right of the employer to terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any inquiry in certain circumstances by reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice. The facts involved in these matters are diverse but the central question involved in all these is one, i.e. whether the clauses permitting the employers or the authorities concerned to terminate the employment of the employees by giving reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice but without holding any inquiry, are constitutionally valid and, if not, what would be the consequences of termination by virtue of such clauses or powers, and further whether such powers and clauses could be so read with such conditions which would make such powers constitutionally and legally valid? In order to appreciate the question the factual matrix of these cases so far a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR414; 2009(111)BomLR502
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Common question involved in all these Writ Petitions is, .whether State Government can levy and demand any sum as amount of nonagricultural assessment from Petitioners WCL.... Petitioner- Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its Head Office at Nagpur and it is Central Government Undertaking in public sector as also the Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of Companies Act. It is having coal mines in western part of the nation including State of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Prayers in all Writ Petitions filed by it are to declare that orders assessing non-agricultural tax and demand notices issued consequentially are illegal. There is also similar prayer in relation to Zilla Parishad cess and Gram Panchayats cess with direction to Respondents to refund the amount already recovered from it on that account.2. In W. P. 1161/2007 challenge is to assessment orders dated 3/3/2005 and 4/3/2005 and consequential demand notices da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas511(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Justice Vimadalal dismissing a suit filed on the Original Side of this High Court on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to be substituted as the plaintiffs and to continue the suit.2. The suit originally filed by the Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), against the respondent, who was the managing director of the company until July 18, 1959, to recover from him a sum of Rs. 48,08,329.69 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum for Rs. 35,55,600 from February 11, 1963, up to the date of the judgment and, thereafter, at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum till payment. According to the case made out in the plaint, the said sum of Rs. 33,55,600 represented the aggregate of the amounts fraudulently taken away by the respondent in his capacity as the managing director of the company. At the hearing of the suit, the claim for interest on the said sum of Rs. 35,55,600 for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2098; JT2009(4)SC155; 2009(2)KLT95(SC); 2009(3)SCALE829; (2009)12SCC635; 2009(3)LC1414(SC); 2009AIRSCW2678
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In all these appeals challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in several writ appeals and original petitions.2. The High Court referred to the factual position in Writ Appeal No. 1835/97 which was directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 4th September, 1997 in O.P. No. 16424/94. The High Court noted that the factual basis in all the cases is similar except the dates and the areas involved and the location of the factories.3. Since the grounds of challenge raised by the appellant and the responses of the respondents are common, they are taken up together. The background facts are to be noted in brief:4. The first respondent is the owner of a factory situated in an extent of 2.29 acres of land in Kotttarakkara Taluk of Kollam District. The factory comprises several buildings like godown, office, shelling and peeling sheds, grading shed etc. with necessary machineries and equipments installed therein for facilitatin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2008)BC421(SC); 153(2008)DLT27(SC); 2008(12)SCALE42; (2008)9SCC763
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal raises a question of great public importance having far- reaching consequences. The appeal is filed by KSL & Industries Ltd. (`appellant' for short) against final judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi on February 23, 2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 2041-42 of 2006. By the said judgment, the High Court, set aside the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (`DRAT' for short) and held that in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as `SICA'), no recovery proceedings could be effected against the first respondent- Company in the light of the bar contained therein.Factual Background3. To understand the controversy in its proper perspective, it is necessary to keep in mind the factual matrix of the case. Respondent No. 1 (M/s. Arihant Threads Ltd.) (`Company' for short) was incorporated as a joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC923; (1994)2GLR949; JT1993(2)SC465; (1993)2MLJ140(SC); 1993(2)SCALE244; [1993]2SCR715
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of the same facts and judgments of the Karnataka High Court and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of the narration of events Civil Appeal Nos. 1461-72/ 1993 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7230-41 of 1991 may be referred to.The 2nd respondent-M/s. Naryanaswamy & Sons is a partnership firm. While it was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of polished granites, it acquired on 30.9.1953, 6 acres and 4 gunthas of land in Survey Nos. 6/1 and 6/2 of Dasarahalli in the heart of Jayanagar Extension of the city of Bangalore. Out of the said land, 1 acre and 2 gunthas had already been acquired by the 1st respondent-State Government under notification dated 1.4.1948. The acquisition proceedings had culminated in an award, granting compensation to the land owner on 3.3.1955. In a small portion of the said land, the 2nd respondent-firm (hereinafter referred to as the 'firm'), established a gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1480; (1990)1CompLJ125(SC); JT1989(4)SC582; 1991(2)SCALE841; (1990)1SCC613; [1989]Supp2SCR597
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, C.J.1. Is the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is constitutionally valid? That is the question.2. The Act was passed as a sequel to a grim tragedy. On the night of 2nd December, 1984 occurred the most tragic industrial disaster in recorded human history in the city of Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh in India. On that night there was massive escape of lethal gas from the MIC storage tank at Bhopal Plant of the Union Carbide (I) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'UCIL') resulting in large scale death and untold disaster. A chemical plant owned and operated by UCIL was situated in the northern sector of the city of Bhopal. There were numerous hutments adjacent to it on its southern side, which were occupied by impoverished squatters. UCIL manufactured the pesticides, Seven and Tamik, at the Bhopal plant, at the request of, it is stated by Judge John F. Keenan of the United States District Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC851; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)405; [2005(104)FLR820]; JT2005(1)SC449; (2005)ILLJ853SC; (2005)2SCC638; 2005(2)SLJ358(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1470
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Maruti Udyog Limited, the Appellant herein, is a Government company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956. In terms of a notification issued under Section 6 of the Maruti Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') the undertakings of the Maruti Limited (the Company) has vested in the Appellant. It is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 837 of 1995 whereby and whereunder a judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge dated 19.4.1995 passed in C.W.P No. 15728 of 1993 questioning an Award dated 28.7.1993 passed by the Labour Court in Reference Nos. 437, 438 and 166 of 1988, was set aside.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The Respondents herein who are three in number were appointed by Maruti Limited as Electrician, Helper and Assistant Fitter with effect from 274 1974, 8.11.1973 and 8.4.1974 respectiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1999]96CompCas460(P& H)
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. 1. These two matters arising out of claims for compensation under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, were referred to a Full Bench as it was felt that there were conflicting opinions on the admissibility of the copy of the insurance policy in evidence and the onus to prove the terms of the policy.2. In First Appeal from Order No. 1154 of 1988, the learned judges of a Division Bench of this court noticed the conflicting views taken by two different Division Benches in Jullundur Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Mrs. Raj Wali [1989] 1 PLR 259 ; [1989] ACJ 901 (P&H;) and Oriental Insurance, Co, Ltd. v. Clandrawati [1990] 68 Comp Cas 79 (P&H;) ; [1989] 1 PLR 240 in regard to the production of the copy of the insurance policy and the exhibition thereof by the court without any formal proof of the execution of the policy. The learned judges also observed that another point of 'similar importance regarding the onus to prove the terms of the policy whether ...
Tag this Judgment!