Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1992Cal250,(1992)1CALLT335(HC),[1993]76CompCas292(Cal)
ORDERAltamas Kabir, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th October, 1985, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on an application filed on behalf of the defendant No. 5 in Suit No. 296 of 1980, dismissing the said application, upon holding that the point sought to be raised by the defendant No. 5 could well be taken in his written statement and the trial Court could decide the point, if urged, at the hearing of the suit.2. Certain interesting points of law have been raised in this appeal, which has been preferred by the defendant No. 5 in the suit, which makes it necessary for us to set out the material facts leading to the filing of the above-mentioned application in the suit.3. The defendant No. 1 in the suit, National Rubber ., is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant No. 5 claims to be the Managing Director of the defendant No. 1 company.4. The defendant No. ! owned two factories and/or undertakings,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1998Cal218
ORDERSamaresh Banerjea, J.1. This is an application under An. 227 of the Constitution challenging the order No. 63 dated April 28, 1997 passed by the learned Judge, Second Court, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Commercial Execution Case No. 24 of 1989 issuing prohibitory order upon garnishee.2. The opposite party No. 1 obtained a decree for money in Commercial Suit No. 8 of 1984 on 19th of Sept. 1985 against Inchek Tyres Limited and National Rubber Manufacturers Limited and thereafter in that execution case the present petitioner Tyre Corporation of Indi a Limited was added as (sic) present Corporation after nationalisation of the aforesaid Inchek Tyre and National Rubber Manufacturers Limited is the successor of the aforesaid two companies, in the aforesaid Execution case, being Commercial Case No. 8 of 1984, the present petitioner made an application on 15th of March, 1995 for suspension of the Execution case, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner company had been declared sic...
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 : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas126(Mad); (1984)IILLJ34Mad
Mohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act), is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of India. 2. We would first note the facts leading to Writ Appeals Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of Writ Petitions Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1979 is for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispense of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of the Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manger, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1875, of the file of the Second Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C. V. Raman, under section 41 of the Act. 3. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC215; (1977)4SCC471; [1978]1SCR641
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This batch of 374 appeals by certificate is from the decision of the High Court of Karnataka given in 374 Writ Petition filed by different persons having various kinds of interest in the Contract Carriages which were taken over by the State of Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 7 of 1976) (for brevity, hereinafter, the Ordinance) followed by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The judgment of the High Court is reported in K. Jayaraj Ballal and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.. The Indian Law Reports (Karnataka) 1976 (Vol. 26), 1478. For the sake . of convenience hereinafter in this judgment, reference to the High Court judgment wherever necessary will be made from the said report.FACTS2. The broad and the common facts of the various cases are in a narrow compass and not in dispute. At the outset, we shall state them mostl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2007)1GLR527
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Textiles Labour Association and learned advocate Mr. A.K. Clerk appearing on behalf of the respondent - workman.2. The petitioner - Textiles Labour Association has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No.1048 of 1985 dated 31st August 1996. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad has partly allowed the reference granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 70% back wages of interim period. This Court, while issuing rule, has granted interim relief against the implementation of the award subject to compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by order dated 18th March 1997. From the record of the petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner by one Mahendrakumar A. Maniar, office bearer of petitioner Association, to bring on record the certain events and facts which have occurred during the pendency of petition. There ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3453/2002 JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. Appellants VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondents WITH C.A. No.6383-6421/1997, C.A. No.6422-6435/1997, C.A. No.6436/1997, C.A. No.6437-6440/1997 , C.A. No.3381-3400/1998, C.A. No.4651/1998, C.A. No.918/1999, C.A. No.2769/2000, C.A. No.4471/2000, C.A. No.3314/2001, C.A. No.3454/2002, C.A. No.3455/2002, C.A. No.3456-3459/2002, C.A. No.3460/2002, C.A. No.3461/2002, C.A. No.3462-3463/2002, C.A. No.3464/2002, C.A. No.3465/2002, C.A. No.3466/2002, C.A. No.3467/2002, C.A. No.3468/2002, C.A. No.3469/2002, C.A. No.3470/2002, C.A. No.3471/2002, C.A. No.4008/2002, C.A. No.5385/2002, C.A. No.5740/2002, C.A. No.5858/2002, W.P.(C) No.512/2003, W.P.(C) No.574/2003, C.A. No.2608/2003, C.A. No.2633/2003, C.A. No.2637/2003, C.A. No.2638/2003, C.A. No.3720-3722/2003, C.A. No.6331/2003, C.A. No.8241/2003, C.A. No.8242/2003, C.A. No.8243/2003, C.A. No.8244/2003, C.A. No.8245/2003, C.A. No.8246/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1
1. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with interpretation of Golakhnath case; Part III with the interpretation of the original Article 368, as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VI with the validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VII with Constitution (Twenty- ninth Amendment) Act; and Part VIII with conclusions.PART I-Introduction2. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. I may give a few facts in Writ petition No. 135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.906 OF2016VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA ...PETITIONER (S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ...RESPONDENT (S) WITH T.P.(C) No.1958-1967/2016, W.P.(C) No.1011/2016, SLP(C) No.36757/2016, W.P.(C) No.40/2017, W.P.(C) No.47/2017, W.P.(C) No.41/2017, W.P.(C) No.260/2017, T.P.(C) No.607/2017, T.P.(C) No.588/2017, T.P.(C) No.626/2017, T.P.(C) No.585/2017, T.P.(C) No.582/2017, T.P.(C) No.638/2017, W.P.(C) No.568/2018, W.P.(C) No.1018/2019, W.P.(C) No.683/2020, T.C.(C) No.9/2017, W.P.(C) No.908/2016, W.P.(C) No.913/2016, W.P.(C) No.916/2016, W.P.(C) No.1026/2016, W.P.(C) No.943/2016, W.P.(Crl.) No.162/2016, W.P.(C) No.951/2016, W.P.(C) No.929/2016, W.P.(C) No.930/2016, W.P.(C) No.944/2016, T.P.(C) No.1982-1996/2016, W.P.(C) No.952/2016, W.P.(C) No.953/2016, W.P.(C) No.958/2016, W.P.(C) No.957/2016, SLP(C) No.35356/2016, T.P.(C) No.2030- 2038/2016, W.P.(C) No.978/2016, W.P.(C) No.1025/2016, SLP(C) No.3580...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. h December, 2014 Date of Decision:06. h February, 2015 % + CRL.A.910/2008 VIKAS YADAV Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. with Mr.Amit Kala,Adv. versus STATE OF UP Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. CRL.A.741/2008 VISHAL YADAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Vinay Arora, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF UP ....Respondents Through : Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. Crl.A.Nos.910, 741, 958/2008, Crl.Rev.P.No.369/2008, Crl.A.Nos.1322/2011 & 145/2012 pg. 1 + CRL.A.958/2008 STATE Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for ...
Tag this Judgment!