Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-15-1999
Reported in : (2000)ILLJ358MP; 2000(1)MPLJ26
..... of trustees and the state boards of trustees constituted under section 5a and section 5b respectively, of the employees' provident funds and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the 'indian airlines' and 'air india' corporations established under section 3 of air corporation act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the life insurance corporation of india established under section 3 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the oil and natural gas commission established under section 3 of the oil and natural gas commission act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the deposit insurance and credit guarantee corporation act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the central warehousing corporation act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the unit trust of india ..... 29, 1995. accordingly, the labour commissioner fixed, the date of hearing to june 15, 1995. objections were filed by both the parties and the matter was adjourned to july 1, 1995. eventually by order dated july 1, 1995 the labour commissioner disallowed the application preferred by the applicant therein for grant of permission to effect retrenchment of 40 workmen. the aforesaid order of rejection was assailed in w.p. no. 882/1995 before the indore bench of this court. it was contended before this court that the labour commissioner did not consider .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-19-1999
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
..... not be open to anyone to go behind them and question them. he relied upon the observations of the supreme court in the case of life insurance corporation of india v. escorts ltd. : 1986(8)ecc189 , in para. 84, wherein the supreme court observed as follows (p. 619) : 'as we said earlier, under the scheme of the act, it is the reserve bank of india that is constituted and entrusted with the task of regulating and conserving foreign exchange. if one ..... then was in this court) held (p. 828) : 'now it is clear to my mind that even for the relief contemplated by section 155 of the companies act, 1956, a suit would be a primary remedy under the general law. the relief which is contemplated by that section is one which would be available at common law as well.... the provision made in section 155 of the companies act, 1956, for a procedure by way of an application is only a provision for a summary procedure. the object of this provision is not to whittle down or abrogate the procedure by way of ..... he supreme court has crystallised the law with respect to various aspects to be examined at the interlocutory stage, which very much includes examination of the question as to whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie case. in para. 43 of that judgment, the court observed as follows (page 651 of comp cas) : 'the grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. while exercising the discretion, the court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-10-1999
Reported in : [1999]98CompCas683(P& H); [2000(84)FLR538]
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The respondent, the Haryana Financial Corporation (for short 'the corporation'), had filed a petition for winding up of Ravindra Pharmaceutical (P.) Ltd. On February 4, 1994, an order was passed for winding up of the abovesaid company. On August 12, 1994, on the application of the corporation, this court directed that after selling the properties of Ravindra Pharmaceutical Private Limited, the respondent-Corporation will send to this court a detailed report regarding all the steps taken for the sale of the property and also regarding the price which the properties had fetched. On January 13, 1995, an application was filed for confirmation of the sale which was allowed. 2. The official liquidator has filed an application under rule 9 read with rules 147 and 148 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, and sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). It appears that an accident took place wherein seven workmen died, two were seriously injured....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-14-1999
Reported in : 2000(67)ECC428; 2000LC5(SC); 2000(115)ELT3(SC); JT1999(9)SC635; 2000(1)KLT441(SC); 1999(7)SCALE486; (2000)1SCC462
ORDERN. Santosh Hegde, J1. The appellant in these appeals manufactures beer in its Solan and Ghaziabad Breweries for which it uses Lupofresh aromatic hop pellets which is normally imported from abroad. For their requirement of cc hop pellets they used to place orders with an agent by name M/s. Pyarelal Sarin (Agencies) Private Limited, New Delhi, who, in turn, used to arrange for supply of hop pellets required by the appellant. On 11.6.1991 the appellant was informed that 2000 kg. of hop pellets had been despatched to their brewery which was received by them on 20.7.1991. The hop pellets so received by the appellant were from M/s. Arusan Industries who, in turn, had received the same from M/s. Integrated Exports, Madras. In view of certain raid conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in the premises of the appellant with regard to the said hop pellets, they came to know that there was certain investigation being conducted by the Customs Department with reference to the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-12-1999
Reported in : [2000(87)FLR86]; (2000)IILLJ1490Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed this appeal as against the order dated February 21, 1989, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Madras, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 19 of 1986.2. The appellant, by its notice dated February 19, 1986, called upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,255 as damages for the delayed payment of contribution for the period from September, 1976, to July, 1978. The respondent questioned the said demand by filing a petition under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, wherein, it is stated that (1) the respondent has paid the said contribution amount in time, and hence, the damages claimed by the appellant is not correct; (2) the appellant had no legal authority to levy and claim damages, as there was no valid delegation of the powers.3. The appellant resisted the said petition on the ground that the damage was claimed under the notice dated October 27, 1979, and the respondent should have filed the petition within...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-14-1999
Reported in : (2000)72ITD1(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., for the assessment year 1992-93, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1992. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, salt and detergents in its factories. This appeal arises out of the assessment order passed by the Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range I, Bombay, on 24-3-1995, under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 76,84,31,176.2. The first ground is directed against the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(m) of the Income-tax Act, while computing the profits and gains of the business. The total claim of interest was Rs. 81,24,20,861, which was made in the revised return. The break-up of the claim is as below : Division 1,66,83,137 36,80,38,952 86,42,54,952(c) Gross Interest (a + b) 86,42,54,952(d) Less : Interest and out of borrowed funds 5,18,34,091(e) Net Interest claimed as 81,24,20,861 deduction In the assessment pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-14-1999
Reported in : [1999(82)FLR102]; (2001)IIILLJ38Bom
N.J. Pandya, J. 1. These two petitions are filed by the employer and employee respectively against the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, given in Reference No. CGIT-1/87/1990 on December 16, 1994. T.C. Marathe (hereinafter referred to as the said 'employee') alongwith another co-worker, was facing departmental proceedings before the Enquiry Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the employer (hereinafter referred to as such).(i) The incidents related to what had happened on November 18, 1982 and November 19, 1982. That the said employee with his co- worker Mandavkar, working as Hamal of the employer, at the relevant time were supposed to carry out packing and unpacking work in the stationery department. On November 18, 1982 they were asked to pack the stationery in the boxes to be sent to the Parbhani Branch office and in that regard, in spite of the instructions, they have failed to pick and pack the stationery in the boxes and could not send it t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-21-1999
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT183(HC)
B.M. Mitra, J.1. The connected writ petition has been filed at theInstance of M/s. Rainbow Production Private Ltd., a Company Incorporated under the Companies Act and one Miss Soma Mukherjee, one of theDirectors of the petitioner No. 1 company against Prasar BharaU (Broadcasting Corporation of india), a body corporate and its numerous office bearers who are figuring as respondents in the said writ petition. it appears from the perusal of the prayer portion of the connected writ petition that manifold prayers are made, inter alia, for a declaration that Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of india) being an autonomous body cannot stall and/or amend any concluded contract entered between any citizen and the corporation and cannot at any stage withhold and/or withdraw its public commitments and for a further writ of Mandamus to give effect to an earlier decision taken by the former Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharatl which was communicated to the Doordarshan Kendra, Calcutta and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-1999
Reported in : AIR1999Kant441; ILR1999KAR1219; 1999(3)KarLJ167
ORDER1. The petitioner in this petition has prayed for a direction, directing the respondents to restore the building to its original condition by effecting structural construction of shop bearing Nos. 9, 15 and 16 formed at basement of the building situate at No. 14, St. Marks Road, Bangalore and in the alternative has sought for a direction to pay money in the form of damages on the ground of deprivation of the petitioner's livelihood, estimating at Rs. 30,00,000/- and for other reliefs. 2. The petitioner after obtaining necessary licence from the 1st respondent-Corporation established a restaurant in shop bearing Nos. 9, 15 and 16 formed at basement of the building situated at No. 14, St. Marks Road, Bangalore after taking the said property on lease from the original owner. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has invested about Rs. 20,00,000/- for her restaurant business in the above said premises. The particulars of the investment are also furnished in the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-1999
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1715; 1999(5)KarLJ193
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions assailing the constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (in short, 'the KMC Act') and the action of the respondent organizations in refusing permission for contesting the election for Councillors of Municipal Corporation, Bangalore.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 43146 of 1995 is a workman employed in Bharat Earth Movers Limited, Bangalore Complex. Bharat Earth Movers is a Public Sector Establishment engaged in the manufacture of earth moving equipments and Railway Coaches. The shares of this Company are held in the name of the President of India and the same is 'State' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's application seeking permission to contest in the Bangalore City Corporation Elections came to be rejected.3. Petitioner Smt. C. Chandramma, in W.P. No. 28766 of 1996 is an employee working as Senior Office Assistant in M/s. Indian Telephone Indus...
Tag this Judgment!