Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(2)ALT8(SC); [2001]104CompCas29(SC); (2001)1MLJ184(SC); 2000(7)SCALE724
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This is an application Under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and relates to a dispute under an agreement between a foreign company and an Indian company. The application is filed by the foreign company against the Indian company seeking reference of the disputes to an arbitrator. The learned Chief Justice of India has nominated me to deal with the application.2. The claim of the petitioner is that the respondent company is liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 96,21,137/- with interest at 24% with quarterly rests w.e.f. 1.5.99 besides other amounts.3. The facts set out in the petition by the petitioner as follows: The petitioner company has its Principal place of business at Kaulalumpur, Malaysia. It has an office at New Delhi and it is carrying on business of air-transportation, operation of air flights in and from India under a bilateral agreement between Malaysia and India. It is stated that its Senior Vice President, Sout...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(8)SCALE145
ORDER1. Leave is granted. 2. These appeals are directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision Nos. 6219, 6220, 6221 and 6222 of 1999 dated December 13, 1999. 3. The facts in these cases lie in a narrow compass. The appellant constructed four godowns on his lands. The construction project was financed by the State Bank of Patiala. The arrangement between the parties was that the loan obtained from the State Bank of Patiala will be utilised by the appellant for constructing four godowns which would be taken on lease by the respondent and the rent thereof would be paid directly to the bank. 4. It appears that the lease was terminated by the respondent before the expiry of period of lease and therefore the rent for the period 1st March, 1981 to 2nd April, 1984 became the subject matter of dispute for all the four godowns. The dispute between them was referred to an Arbitrator who has passed an Award granting the rent for the said period together with i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)1MLJ133(SC); 2000(8)SCALE3; [2000]Supp5SCR228
Umesh C. Banerjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta is addressed on two counts: The first involving the true purport of International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) as introduced by the Government of India and the second pertains to the doctrine of estoppel by conduct.Background Facts:3. By the Government Notification No SC (A)-24(113)/63 Dated 29.2.1964 issued by the Department of Iron & Steel in the Ministry of Steel, Mines and Heavy Engineering, the Government of India to give effect to the proposal for fixation of steel prices for de-controlled categories, constituted the Joint Plant Committee consisting of representatives of all major producers of steel along with Government representative. It is the Joint Plant Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'JPC) with whose concurrence, the main producers, being its members control the prices of similar categories of steel, though however, the same is restrictive in its application an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(88)FLR340]; (2001)ILLJ148SC; 2000(7)SCALE707; [2000]Supp5SCR184; (2001)1UPLBEC187
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This appeal is filed against the orders made by the High Court either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court on an appeal thereto declining to interfere with an adjudication by the Tribunal under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court on an appeal thereto.2. Section 13-A of the Act provides that if any question arises as to the application or interpretation of a standing order any employer or workman or a trade union or other representative body of workmen may refer the question to any one of the Labour Courts and the Labour Court to which such question is referred shall, after giving opportunity to the parties, decide the same, which shall be final and binding on the parties. Standing Order 15(x) of the Certified Standing Order of 1953 of the appellant provides that taking intoxicants or noxious drugs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(88)FLR286]; (2001)ILLJ167SC; 2000(7)SCALE709; [2000]Supp5SCR193; 2001(1)LC242(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 5th August, 1986 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The Appellant is a Road Transport Corporation established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The Respondents are employees of the Appellant Corporation. The Respondents had filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act claiming wages for holidays declared under the Andhra Pradesh Factories and Establishments (National Festival and other Holidays) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).This claim was contested by the Appellant. The Appellant pointed out that under the said Act only 7 days holiday were to be given, whereas they had already granted 15 days holiday. The Appellant also contended that by virtue of Section 11(1)(c) of the said Act the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to them. The Appropriate Authority did not accept the contentions of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)BLJR203; [2001(88)FLR354]; (2001)ILLJ165SC; 2000(7)SCALE718; [2000]Supp5SCR179
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The services of the appellant employed in the establishment of respondent No. 1 were terminated on 25.8.1980. She made an application under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] before the Labour Court, Ranchi questioning the correctness of the same. The Labour Court allowed the same by directing her reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity in service. This order made by the Labour Court was called in question in a writ petition, which on dismissal by a learned Single Judge, was carried in further appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.2. Two contentions were put forth before the appellate court, firstly that respondent No. 1 is not an establishment for the purposes of the Act and, therefore, the application filed by the appellant is incompetent and secondly that respondent No. 1 terminated her services after giving salary for a period of three months as provided in the relev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(73)ECC652; 2001(127)ELT11(SC); 2000(8)SCALE20
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. We are concerned in these appeals, from a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, with the Assessment Year 1972-73, the previous year of which ended for the assessee on 30th September, 1971. The question that was referred to the High Court and which it answered in the negative and against the assessee reads thus:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 4,18,107/- under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act? 2. The assessee, an individual, carried on the business of processing cashew nuts in ten units. Four of these units were situated in Kerala. Of these four units, two were owned by the assessee and two were taken on lease. In October, 1969, the assessee faced labour problems in Kerala, consequent upon which he ordered a lock-out of the four units there. On 9th March, 1970, the assessee leased out the two units which he owned in Kerala to a private limited company whose only two share...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(2)ALT25(SC); [2001(88)FLR343]; (2001)ILLJ171SC; (2001)IMLJ144(SC); 2000(7)SCALE713; [2000]Supp5SCR187; 2001(1)LC169(SC); (2001)1UPLBEC28
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 29th September, 1994.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellant is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and a recognised union of Borosil Glass Works Ltd. The 4th Respondent and certain other persons made a joint application for membership of the Appellant Union. As the application was not according to the procedure of the Appellant. Union no action was taken on the said application. All those persons were asked to apply individually by filling in the prescribed form and make payment of requisite fee and membership subscription.3. The Appellant received a notice dated 15th April, 1993 from the Registrar of Trade Unions under Section 10(b) of the Trade Unions Act threatening to cancel the registration of the Appellant Union. The Appellant Union then learnt that this was pursuant to a complaint filed by 4th Respondent under Section 28(1A) of the Trade Unions Act. The Appellant then represented t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(88)FLR341]; (2001)ILLJ178SC; 2000(7)SCALE716; (2001)9SCC213; 2001(1)LC152(SC); (2001)1UPLBEC1
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. On the termination of the services of the first respondent on 27.8.1969 by the appellant an industrial dispute was raised by the former which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court at Gorakhpur. The Labour Court raised preliminary issues and, inter alia, held that the inquiry conducted by the appellant-Management in relation to the alleged misconduct is valid, fair and proper. An argument was raised before the Labour Court that on the construction of Standing Orders Nos. 21-H and 21-Z the inquiry was not competent because the Hindalco hospital where the incident in relation to alleged mis-conduct of respondent is stated to have taken place is away from the factory premises and so was not committed within the premises of the industrial establishment and reliance was placed in support of this contention on Management of S.R.P. Tools Ltd., Madras v. Presiding Officer (2), Additional Labour Court, Madras and Ors. 1974 (29) FLR 416, while the Management r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(7)SCALE731; [2000]Supp5SCR200; (2001)1UPLBEC280
C. Banerjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. The concept of fairness in administrative action has been the subject matter of considerable judicial debate but there is total unanimity on the basic element of the concept to the effect that the same is dependant upon the facts and circumstances of each matter pending scrutiny before the Court and no straight jacket formula can be evolved therefore. As a matter of fact fairness is synonymous with reasonableness: And on the issue of ascertainment of meaning of reasonableness, common English parlance referred to as what is in contemplation of an ordinary man of prudence similarly placed - it is the appreciation of this common man's perception in its proper perspective which would prompt the Court to determine the situation as to whether the same is otherwise reasonable or not.3. It is worthwhile to recapitulate that in a democratic policy, the verdict of the people determine the continuance of an elected Government - a negative trend in the elections ...
Tag this Judgment!