Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Court: delhi Page 37 of about 365 results (0.106 seconds)

Aarshiya Gulati (Minor) Thr. Next Friend & Ors vs.kuldeep Singh Gulati ...

Court : Delhi

..... or rely upon rohit chauhan (supra). it cs (os) 2223/2013 page 32 of 49 only deals with the interpretation and effect of the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 to section 6 with regard to female coparcenors. consequently, the said judgment offers no assistance to the plaintiffs.64. undoubtedly, the supreme court in shyam narayan prasad vs. krishna prasad ..... by hindu female all together.76. in fact, the supreme court in jagannathan pillai vs. kunjithapadam pillai & ors. 1987 (2) scc572has held that by enacting section 14 of the act, 1956, the legislature has done away with the concept of limited ownership in respect of property owned by hindu female all together. to obviate hair-splitting, the ..... ) 11 scc483 c.n. ramappa gowda vs. c.c. chandregowda (dead) by lrs. and another, (2012) 5 scc265 molar and ors. vs. smt. santo and ors., plr (1968) 70 p&h510 gurjant singh major and others vs. surjit singh and others, plr (2004) cs (os) 2223/2013 page 43 of 49 138 p&h469 and matu ram (deceased .....

Bharat Heavy Elelctricals Ltd. Vs. P.O. Labour Court- Viii and Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... had denied the relationship of employer and employee with the claimant, it would not have been possible to claim wages for suspension period under section 33c(2) of the act for claimant. as discussed above, as held by the apex court in balvantray ratilal patel (supra), on suspension the employee could only be ..... status of the claimant has been disputed and which requires adjudication, such an issue could have been adjudicated only upon a reference of the dispute under section 10 of the act. therefore, the question of suspension in relation to the dispute of status and dispute of existence of contract labour certainly constitutes an industrial dispute. ..... question is whether order of suspension is an industrial dispute and be referred under section 10(1)(c) of i.d. act for adjudication to labour court.18. the supreme court in balvantray ratilal patel vs the state of maharashtra: (1968) 2 scr577: air1968sc800has elaborated the general principles relating to suspension of an employee pending .....

M/S. Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. The Employees Provident Funds ...

Court : Delhi

..... provide for compulsory establishment of provident fund by every employer in the industrial concerns for the betterment of his employee, the epf act was enacted.19. the epf act, under its various sections, encompasses the provisions for establishment of employees provident fund schemes, contribution and matters which may be provided for in scheme, determination ..... employer to prevent them from not carrying out their statutory obligations to make payments to the provident fund. the damages under section 14-b epf act are penal in nature. this section authorizes the central provident fund commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised to impose exemplary or punitive damages and thereby ..... eight lakhs fifty three thousand eight hundred ninety five) on account of good work reward paid by the petitioner to its employees between the period from 1968 to 1983.6. against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing no.1112/1986 before the high court of rajasthan. vide its .....

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khanna and Anndhanam

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)663

..... contract. hence, the sum of rs. 47,20,939 received by the assessee during the asst. yr. 1968-69 constituted in its entirety a capital receipt and was not assessable; (ii) that none of the ingredients mentioned in section 2(47) of the it act, 1961, was present in the transaction in question. there was neither sale nor exchange nor relinquishmerit of any ..... business but it was a case of breach of contract between the assessee and the jute mill company and it was a revenue receipt liable to tax under section 28(ii) of the it act, 1961.28. in the case of blue star ltd. v. cit (supra), the headnote read as under: the question whether a particular income arising from termination ..... rs. 15 lakhs during the year 1989-90 only a sum of rs. 5 lakhs was a capital receipt and not liable to tax as income under section 28(ii)(c) of the it act, 1961.31. applying the principle laid down above and also on the basis of various judicial pronouncements we analyze facts of the present ease.the assessee received .....

Mrs. Jasmeet Kaur vs.mr. Navtej Singh

Court : Delhi

..... respect on their dates of listing.2. the registry, henceforth, is directed not to accept such matters as enumerated in explanation to sub section (i) of section 7 and section 8 of the family courts act, 1984. these practice directions shall come into force with immediate effect. by order sd/- (girish kathpalia) registrar general (emphasis supplied) keeping ..... 2010 & i.a. no.12186/2010 titled amina bharatram vs. sumant bharatram and others , all matters enumerated in explanation to sub-section (i) of section 7 and section 8 of the family courts act, 1984 shall be exclusively triable by the family courts and the jurisdiction of the high court to the extent it exercises ordinary original ..... , would be governed by section 9 cpc. in accordance with the said section, all injunctions/anti-suit injunctions of a civil nature, have to be tried by a civil court "excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred." 16. in dhulabhai vs. state of m.p. (1968) 3 scr662 it has .....