Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC145; [1975(31)FLR358]; (1976)ILLJ33SC; (1975)2SCC847; [1976]2SCR138
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. Here, in this case, once again arises the question as to what is an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This question has continually baffled and perplexed the Courts in our country. There have been various judicial ventures in this rather volatile area of the law. The Act gives a definition of 'industry' in Section 2(j) but this definition is not very vocal and it has defied analysis, so that judicial effort has been ultimately reduced merely to evolving tests by reference to characteristics regarded as essential for constituting an activity as an 'industry'. The decided cases show that these tests have not been uniform; they have been guided more by an empirical rather than a strictly analytical approach. Sometimes these tests have been liberally conceived, sometimes narrowly. The latest exposition is to be found in the judgment of a Bench of six Judges of this Court in Safdarjung Hospital v. K. S. Sethi : (1970)IILLJ266SC . But wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1984Delhi214
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This is a petition under the proviso to section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (the 'Act'). It seeks to have revised an order for recovery of possession made by Mr. Dinesh Dayal, the 4th Additional Rent Controller.(2) The petitioner is Waryam Singh Duggal, the aggrieved tenant. He is a building contractor. The respondent is Savitri Devi, the wife of Shri Dheram Pal. She is the owner of the house at 2114, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. This is a two and a half storeyed house. Excepting one room, the tenant has the entire ground floor. The landlady has that one room on the ground floor, the entire first floor, and the barsati. There are two garages. One is with the tenant, and the other with the landlady, there are also two servants' quarters. They are in the possession of other tenants. I will .give more details about the accommodation a little later.(3) The order for recovery of possession was made under section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was held: (i) that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IAD(Delhi)713; 53(1994)DLT785; (1994)IILLJ1078Del
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) These two writ petitions have been filed by the Management and the Workman Shri N.L. Khosla to impugn the Award dated August 29, 1990, of Shri Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Officer, Labour Court Viii in a reference No. F.26 (92)/68-Lab. dated 25/26.3.1968, made by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in exercise of the powers purported to have been conferred by Sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). (2) Shri N.L. Khosla was employed by the erstwhile 'Roneo Limited' as a Salesman in the year 1962 in New Delhi office on probation on a salary of Rs. 200.00 per month. Shri Khosla was also entitled to commission over and above the salary, which he received. The letter of appointment dated August 16,1962, was issued to the petitioner and the operative part reads as follows: 'RONEOLIMITED H.O.for India P13 Mission Row Extn Calcutta. Incorporated in England Ref. 44 16th August, 1962. Mr.N.L. Khosla, 11/19 East Patel Nagar, Ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1906)16MLJ178
Davies, J.1. These appeals, and the suit out of which they arise, relate to the right to the permanently settled estates of Nidadavole and Medur in the Kistna and Godavari Districts.2. The following genealogical tree shows the relationship of the several members of the family. Narayya Appa Row (1) |Vankata Narasimha Ramachandra Narasimha Appa Row (2) Appa Row (3) Appa Row (4) | | |Narayya Appa Sobhanadri | Row (5) Appa Row (6) | | | | | | Simhadri Narayya Venkatari | Appa Row (7) Appa Row (8) Appa Row (9) | | | Parthasartadhi | Appa Row (16) | | | | | | |Narayan Ranhgyya Venkata Narasimha Vinkatadri Simhadri VenkatramayyaAppa Row Appa Row Appa Row (12) Appa Row (13) Appa Row (14) Appa Row (15) (10) (11) (dead) (dead) (dead) (dead) | Narayya Appa Row (17) given away in adoption.3. The three brothers, Venkatanarasimha (2), Ramachendra (3), and Narasimha (4) were divided. The last admitted male owner of Nidadavole estate was Narayya Appa Row (5) who died in 1864, leaving behind him as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: October 11, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: November 9, 2012 % + RFA (OS) No.90/2010 THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Hemant Singh, Advocate with Ms.Mamta Jha, Mr.Sachin Gupta and Ms.Shashi P.Ojha and Mr.Siddhant Asthana, Advocates versus M/S. S.B.L. LIMITED Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.V.P.Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Atish Dipankar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The above mentioned appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 3rd June, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 111/2006 (old Suit No.1305/1996) whereby the suit against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as defendant) for infringement of trade mark Liv.52 by use of trade mark LIV-T by the defendant was dismissed and it was held that there is no case made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8042 OF2019[Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C)No.6371 OF2019 John DSouza ..... Appellants(s) VERSUS Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation .....Respondents(s) JUDGMENT SURYA KANT, J.Leave granted. The instant appeal, by special leave, is directed against 2. the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the intra-Court appeal preferred by the 1 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short, `the Corporation) against the order dated 20th September, 2017 of the Learned Single Judge has been allowed and after setting aside the order dated 28th October, 2016 of the First Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, the said Court has been directed to decide afresh application of the Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, `the Act) in accordance with the observations made by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC446IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6511 OF2024(Arising out of SLP(C)No.30005 of 2019) TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED APPELLANT(S) Versus TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.6512 OF2024(Arising out of SLP(C)No.2649 of 2020) G. SUMATHI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) Versus TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.1. Leave to appeal by special leave granted. 1|SLP(C)30005/2019 THE APPEALS2 The cross appeals, one by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited1 and the other by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union2, question the judgment and order dated 9th August, 2019, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.Nos.17133 of 2001 and 15241 of 2009 respectively. The position of the parties is in accordance with SLP(C)No.30005 of 2019.3. The impugned judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2000)67TTJ(Chd.)838
The assessee has filed this appeal against the assessment order, dated 31-12-1997 made under section 158BC read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Ground Nos. 1 and 2 relating to conversion of survey proceedings into search proceedings and approval by CIT to the assessment order were not pressed by learned counsel. The same are, therefore, rejected.Learned counsel took up ground No. 23 relating to addition of Rs. 1,69,50,812 first, as the other additions have been telescoped by the assessing officer into this addition. Brief facts are that during search, 37 sealed samples of rice bran and phak were found and seized.These contained details of despatch of rice bran and phak from 27-10-1996 to 3-12-1996. The particulars of quantity of rice bran and phak were not found recorded in the regular books of account. The sealed samples contained particulars relating to the name of the party, date, vehicle number, number of bags, nature of goods description/signature of parties, as m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The present three Appeals raise a common issue and are, consequently, being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts giving rise to FAO(OS) No.674/2010 are as follows:- (a) A contract was entered into between the parties on 28th December, 2000 for construction of a depot and workshop at Shastri Park, Delhi. (b) The salient features of the said contract dated 28th December, 2000 prescribed `61,87,53,692/- as the total contract price for execution and completion of the work and for remedying the defects therein. The stipulated date for completion of the work was 1st November, 2002. (c) Thereafter the work was finally completed by the Respondent/Claimant on 29th January, 2006. (d) Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties for the reason that at the time of making the final payment to the Respondent/Claimant an amount of `57,19,257/- was deducted by the Appellant/Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) towards labour cess and an amount to the tune of `4,08,074/- was accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(2)BomCR289; [2000(86)FLR491]; (2000)IILLJ561Bom
N.J. Pandya, J.1. By order dated February 26, 1992 the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to refer this matter to a larger Bench under the following circumstances.2. An order of the First Labour Court Pune, in Reference (IDA) No. 172 of 1984 was challenged in the present petition before the learned Single Judge. The view taken by the First Labour Court was in view of the provisions of Section 59 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and it had not entertained the award. As could be seen from the file, the learned single Judge by his order dated February 18, 1992, in this very petition, had taken a decision in favour of the petitioner, but before he could sign the judgment, the Division Bench judgment of this Court was brought to his notice rendered in Shivaji Agricultural College, Amravati v. Mukhtyar Ahmed S/o. Haji Mian Sheikh and Anr. reported in 1987 M.L.J. 646. In the ea...
Tag this Judgment!