Payment Of Wages Act 1936 Section 24 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: payment of wages act 1936 section 24 Court: rajasthan jaipur Page 1 of about 93 results (2.169 seconds)M/S.Tarachem Laboratories. Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... the management challenging order dated 18 12 2001 passed by prescribed authority under payment of wages act 1936 jaipur city jaipur directing payment of consequential benefits to workman s k nagesh writ petition no 1100 ..... before supreme court whether chemist would be a workman within meaning of section 2 s of the id act in para 24 of the judgment their lordships of supreme court observed thus 16 .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMr.Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia Vs. Mr.K.K. Singh
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
brightly in the soul of man for liberty revolution are waged battles are fought empires rise and fall 8 the burden the apex court has opined that the judges should neither act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution nor as a post forwarded under sub section 2 thus the report under sub section 2 of section 173 after the initial investigation as well cannot be cribbed cabined and confined in a mechanical manner 24 a copy of this order should be sent by the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSmt. Indira Devi and ors Vs Naresh and anr.
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
however it exonerated the insurance company from the liability of payment of the said compensation amount hence this petition before this vehicle act the act for short section 163a of the act begins with the non obstante clause therefore it overrides the negligence 4 therefore the claim petition was not maintainable under section 163a of the act secondly since the deceased was the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTVijay Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
as under section 307 attempt to murder whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that import of the said goods under section 5 read with section 3 2 of the foreign trade development and regulation act
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMahesh Chand and anr. Vs. Smt Rito and ors.
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
petition i e 03 02 2007 till date of actual payment the appellants shall deposit rs 3 09 000 along with this mfa is tiled u s 173 1 of mv act against the judgment and award dated 27 6 2009 passed and award dated 27 6 2009 passed in mvc no 241 2007 on the file of the prl civil judge sr
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMamta Kumari and ors. Vs. the Board of Sec. Education, Raj and anr.
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
after hearing of the explanation of the students that the action of cancelling the examination had been taken by the respondent unauthorised telephonic wireless or electronic or other instrument or gadget section 3 lays down the prohibition for using unfair means as wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them subsequently on 24 07 2009 the respondents declared the remaining result of senior
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTVinod Kumar. Vs. the State of Rajasthan.
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
life and a fine of rs 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months additional rigorous imprisonment a sudden fight ii there was no premeditation iii the act was done in a heat of passion and iv the c 27 now we will consider whether exception 4 of section 300 ipc is attracted in the present case or not altered custodial sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment would suffice 24 in vadla chandraiah s case supra where appellant carpenter and
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDr (Miss) Aditi Mittal. Vs. Dr Subham Joshi and ors.
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
the dghs on 26 04 2010 may have been an act of over enthusiasm on her part to take chance for
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommercial Taxes Officer. Vs. Ms/ M/S Godrej G.E. Appliances, Tonk Roa ...
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
parts thereof this contract is not free it is on payment basis the contract is not compulsory and the four dealers for the purpose of the central excise under the said act the relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below for as under the definition of sale price as provided under section 2 p of the rajasthan sales tax act 1954 clearly
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSmt Geeta Devi. Vs. J D a and ors.
Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
for removal of encroachment u s 72 of the jda act as regards submission made on which counsel for petitioner laid act 1946 section 78 code of civil procedure 1908 cpc section 115 bombay high court original side rules 1957 power of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT