Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sri Birjay, sought to reinforce his case, by drawing support from the various orders and licences issued by the Central and State Government under different enactments. The industrial Department of Karnataka Government vide its order dated 5.12.1988 allowed a package of incentives and concessions, which are normally admissible to a new industrial unit. The Director General of Technical Development's letter dated 9.2.1989, allotting registration number for manufacture of fatty acids, glycerine and toilet soap. The-Ministry of Industries' letter dated 28th December 1988, permitting them to manufacture industrial oxygen gas, licence dated 22nd August 1989, issued issued by the Drugs Controller of Karnataka, for manufacture of Cosmetics, etc., etc.,. are cited by Sri Birjay to support his client's case that his case was a new establishment, having been set up for the first time in April 1988. He sought to draw support from the fact that neither the raw materials required for Tumkur Unit are received from the common source of Amelnar factory of vice-versa. On this scope, the submitted that there is neither financial integrality, nor financial unity, nor inter-transfer of employees. In order to but tress his case, he sought to rely on the Karnataka High Court rulings in Mahipal Singh Shanker Singh v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1972 LIC 202) and Ganapaty Bhanderkar v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1989 (2) LLJ p. 480) on Bombay High Court rulings in Dharmasi Murarji Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1985) (1) LLJ 433) Karula Rubber Co. Pvt. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1985 (1) LLJ 433) Karula Rubber Co. Pvt. b. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (ILR 1991 p. 448), on Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujchem Distilleries India Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1985 LIC 1714) and on Rajasthan High Court ruling in ILR 1991 p. 202.