Payment Of Wages Act 1936 Section 24 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: payment of wages act 1936 section 24 Year: 1953 Page 1 of about 529 results (1.442 seconds)South India Estate Labour Relations Organisation by Its Secretary, Rep ...
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-09-1953
Reported in : AIR1955Mad45
..... had no jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to payment of wages by reason of there being a special legislation relating thereto payment of wages act 4 of 1936 was repelled by the federal court in shamnugger ..... to amend a reference made under section 10 of the act and that accordingly the memorandum no 59079 dated 25 6 1952 amending the reference made on 24 3 1952 is without jurisdiction .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTKrishna Chandra Bose Vs. Radharani Ghose and ors.
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-08-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal102,57CWN801
reported in air1952cal879 a that section 14 4 rent control act is to be read subject to section 14 1 section 4 rent control act is to be read subject to section 14 1 section 14 1 says that the arrears of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTKedar Nand Vs. Jagat Ram and ors.
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-28-1953
Reported in : AIR1954HP31
for contempt of court under section 3 contempt of courts act 32 of 1952 2 the petitioner is the plaintiff and amar dei and shankar dei for contempt of court under section 3 contempt of courts act 32 of 1952 2 the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSurendra Nath Vs. Tarasashi
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-05-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Cal800,57CWN298
bench extending the period of time under section 5 limitation act nd as the appeal is now in time the special of the special bench extending the period of time under section 5 limitation act nd as the appeal is now in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTIn Re: Gaffar Khan
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-02-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Mad875; (1953)2MLJ96
section 215 criminal p c to quash committals regarding cases actually coming up for hearing before the judge presiding over the court sessions on the original side having concurrent jurisdiction under section 215 criminal p c to quash committals regarding cases actually
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTOfficial Assignee of Madras Vs. A.P. Subramania Mudaliar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-06-1953
Reported in : (1953)2MLJ272
3 that the above full bench decision required reconsideration they actually refused to go into the question of its correctness or bringing into operation the exception referred to in that sub section and will not avail against the o r here the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTHemangini Mitra Vs. M.B. Mukherjee
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-26-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Cal476
exactly the same reasonable requirement as is necessary under the act of 1950 in view of the explanation put in by an appellate judgment of the subordinate judge sixth additional court 24 parganas reversing that of the munsif first additional court alipore
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTShib Chandra Ghosh Vs. the State
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-16-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Cal475
petitioner of an offence under section 7 2 essential supplies act 1946 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months present conviction was illegal in that the mandatory provisions of section 256 criminal p c had not been complied with it
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBabulal and anr. Vs. Mannilal
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-05-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Raj169
that order 22 civil p c and article 176 limitation act have no application to the cases of revision petitions and appeals it does not govern the cases of revision applications section 141 civil p c also does not make the provisions
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTState of Bombay Vs. Antony Marshall Montero
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-24-1953
Reported in : (1954)56BOMLR43
122 d in section 122 d of the bombay police act 1951 the expression a reputed thief means a person who offence and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month section 122 by clause d provides that whoever is found between 1929 and 1953 which is spread over a period of 24 years the question therefore is whether it can be said
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT