Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka prohibition act 1961 section 112 articles seized Court: jharkhand Page 2 of about 53 results (0.217 seconds)

Indian Oxygen Limited Vs. the State of Bihar (Through the Deputy Commi ...

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2006(3)JCR369(Jhr)]

..... the upper limit of the vacant urban land, to be possessed by any person. section 3 of the act prohibits holding of land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which the act applies. section 6 of the act requires a person, holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limits, to file statement. section 7 further requires a person to file ..... the statement, it also asked for exemption under section 20 of the act. the reason for filing the statement before the competent authority at bombay was also explained in the statement. according to the petitiqner, it holds and possesses lands/properties in various states, like assam. andhra pradesh, bihar, gujarat, karnataka, maharashtra, uttar pradesh, west bengal and new delhi, and the major .....

Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. their Workmen Being Represented by Sri ...

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2008(116)FLR1096]; [2008(1)JCR255(Jhr)]

..... government of the state in which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate government. (2)(a) a notification under section 10(1) of the clra act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate government: (1) after consulting with the central ..... the said subsequent decision of the constitution bench.23. in yet another recent decision of the constitution bench of the supreme court in the case of state of karnataka v. uma devi (supra), it has been held that the regularisation of a person in permanent job without following the due procedure is violative of articles 14 ..... 14 and 16 of the constitution of india and is not at all permissible. learned counsel relied on recent decision of the supreme court in the case of state of karnataka v. uma devi reported in : (2006)iillj722sc , which was followed in subsequent decision of the supreme court in labour matter in the case of indian drugs & .....

M/S.B.C.C.L. Vs. their Workmen and anr

Court : Jharkhand

..... a sham and camouflage. it is not in dispute that the nature of work performed through the said contractor has not been prohibited by any notification issued by the appropriate government under section 10(1) of the act of 1970. on issuance of such notification, the industrial adjudicator on a reference made on a dispute raised by the concerned workmen ..... any mandamus for deeming the contract labour as having become the employees of the principal employer. we would not like to express any view on the decision of the karnataka high court or of the gujrat high court(supra) since these decisions are under challenge in this court, but we would place on record that we don not ..... issuance of notification under section 10(1) of the c.l.r.a. act and therefore the workmen are not entitled to regularization. he also relies upon the judgment of honble supreme court rendered in the case of state of karnataka-vs.- uma devi reported in (2006) 4 scc 1 as also the judgment of honble supreme court rendered .....

Employers in Relation to the Management of Sudamdih Colliery of Bharat ...

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : 2007(1)BLJR850; [2007(2)JCR302(Jhr)]

..... be engaged on account of issuance of notification under section 10(1) of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act. it is further submitted by the writ petitioner that since the engagement of contractor was not prohibited in law and, therefore, the writ petitioner was not debarred from engaging a' contractor. the finding of the ..... itself was bad in law.lastly, it was contended that in view of the recent judgment of the supreme court in the case, of 'secretary. state of karnataka v. uma devi reported in : (2006)iillj722sc there is no scope of regularization/employment of contractor workers or persons entering through back doors like contractor workers, the ..... labour but present instances wherein the court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited, and (ii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed of the services of a .....

Haripad Rohidas Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2003(3)JCR50(Jhr)]

..... 983. the respondents not having complied with the aforementioned principles of natural justice, therefore, must be held to have acted illegally and without jurisdiction. lastly, mr. bhowmik referred to the case of h.f. sangati v. registrar general, high court to karnataka and others reported in (2001) 3 scc 117 in support of his contention that affording an opportunity or holding a ..... . this court again respectfully rejects the contention of mr. bhowmik inasmuch as the aforementioned pronouncement is in relation to a case of discharge of probationary munsif in the karnataka judicial service guided by the karnataka civil services (probation) rules 1977. in the instant case, the petitioner is guided by the regulations quoted above which clearly provides at clause 12.1 thereto the .....

Karpuri Devi and anr. Vs. Rabindra Pratap Singh and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2004(3)JCR579(Jhr)]

..... the trial court on 19.11.2003 barring the defendants from filing a written statement, which they have not sought to get reviewed or recalled. i also find that the karnataka high court on a consideration of the relevant aspects has held that at best the court can extend the time for filing a written statement only by a period of .....

Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2004(3)JCR231(Jhr)]

..... karnataka high court has lost sight of the fact that the consequences of sub-section (2) of section 6, having been omitted the supreme court further observed as under:'section 6 of that act made the workmen's compensation act, 1923. industrial disputes act, 1947 (i.d. act), minimum wages act, 1948, maternity benefit act, 1961, payment of bonus act ..... , 1965 and payment of gratuity act, 1972 applicable forthwith to the medical representatives. sub-section (2) of the said ..... that an order of transfer is part of service condition and it cannot be interfered with unless it is mala fide or the service rule prohibits such transfer, by the authorities who issued the order are not competent to pass such order. in this regard reference may be made to the .....

L.B.R. Industries, Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2003(4)JCR212(Jhr)]

..... which is mandatory requirement of law if any area is declared as forest area. the impugned letter and the so called decisions of the government of bihar prohibiting to carry on business within 5 km. from the notified area without assigning any reasons is not sustainable in law. learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid ..... situated in kantatoli road, p.s. lower bazar, distt. ranchi. the petitioner is also registered under the bihar finance act and license was granted under the bihar factories rules, 1950 and bihar agricultural produce market act, 1961. the petitioner is also registered under the 'bihar rules for the establishment of saw pits' and was also granted ..... mill is situated over plot no. 1434-a at arrah gate, village-mahilong, ranchi. the petitioner firm is registered under the bihar finance act and was granted license under the bihar agricultural produce market act, 1961 and the factories act, 1948. it is stated that after the coming into force of the bihar saw mill (regulation .....

Priyanka, Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Babita Shah

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2008(4)JCR296(Jhr)]

..... the prosecution and the materials on record indicated the prima facie material against the petitioners for the offence under section 6 of the dowry prohibition act but section 6 of the dowry prohibition act, 1961 is not relevant, even not attracted against the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case which shows non-application of judicial ..... or remotely was made out against the petitioners under section 498-a/406 of the indian penal code or under sections 3/4 of the dowry prohibition act petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury if they would be allowed to be proceeded maliciously at the caprice and whim of the prosecution without materials ..... officer submitted final form having found the alleged offence under sections 498-a/406 of the indian penal code and under sections 3/4 of the dowry prohibition act against the accused persons including the petitioners.5. the accused persons preferred a petition for their discharge before the learned s.d.j.m., porahat at .....

Bhalotia Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : (2005)196CTR(Jharkhand)619; [2005]275ITR399(Jharkhand); [2004(4)JCR502(Jhr)]

..... of the company. but it appears to us that it will partake the character of a deposit in the hands of the company attracting the prohibition contained in section 269ss of the act.10. the question has to be considered in the context of purpose sought to be achieved by the insertion of section 269ss in the ..... before the commissioner of income tax appeals. the commissioner of income tax appeals accepted the contention of the assessee that it had not. transgressed section 269ss of the act. the revenue challenged the decision of the commissioner of income tax before the income tax appellate tribunal, patna bench. the tribunal, on a consideration of the relevant ..... the instance of the assessee, the income tax appellate tribunal, patna bench has referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the income tax act.'whether the acceptance of share application money in case amounting to rs. 20,000/- or more violates the provisions of section 269ss.' 2. during the course of the .....