Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. By Its Managing ... vs B. Vijaya And Ors. on 31 July, 2002

Ajay Chopra vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 April, 2009

In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with a direction that cases at Sr. Nos.(i) to (iv) as detailed in the head note of the petition are withdrawn from the respective Courts of Additional Sessions Judges at Ludhiana and transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Cr. Misc. No.M-64911 of 2006 [4] Sahib may hear the cases or assign them to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Fatehgarh Sahib. The parties shall appear before the transferee Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 20.5.2009. In case, respondents No.2 to 4 do not appear, they shall be informed by the transferee Court regarding the transfer of the cases. The prayer for transfer of case at Sr. No. (v) titled State v. Vijay B. Verma pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana is dismissed. April 15, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S S Saron - Full Document

The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 1 October, 2009

7. The second respondent appearing in person, in the counter affidavit has stated that he is the General Secretary of the Co-operative Industry Workers Union, that the witness on behalf of the petitioner management before the Labour Court has admitted that the beneficiary in C.P.No.619 of 2003 was appointed by the petitioner within the cadre strength fixed to the fair price shop and the appointment is in conformity with the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court reported in The A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. B.Vijaya [2002(3) CTC 385] and the subsequent clarification, that as per G.O.Ms.No.238 dated 19.10.2000 marked as Ex.R-17 before the Labour Court, the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,1983 and the Rules,1988 made thereunder are not applicable and that section 12(3) settlement or section 18(1) settlement are binding even in cases where the village fair price shop is not a party unless there is a fraud or collusion or misrepresentation. It is also stated that section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act would apply for the purpose of interpreting the settlements even if the employer is disputing the entitlement of workmen. According to the second respondent, the computation petition has been filed based on the pre-existing rights of the beneficiary and there is no bar for payment of minimum wages as per the Payment of Minimum Wages Act and the payment of minimum wages at Rs.2872/- per month itself cannot be obstructed by the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Medicherla Ramanamma And Ors. vs V. Naga Prathap And Anr. on 11 March, 2003

It is no doubt true that the Larger Bench decision reported in B. Vijaya's case (supra) was not brought to the notice of this Court while making the order in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Larger Bench while dealing with Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and Sections 167 and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, had arrived at a conclusion that in the case of awarding of interest on compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not applicable and interest of 12% provided under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not the guiding factor for awarding interest at 12% p.a. or at a higher rate not exceeding the maximum of lending credits of any scheduled bank in a case arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ravi Fabrics vs Shaherbon Traders on 3 January, 2003

In reply, by citing 2002 (3) C.T.C. 385 (THE A.P.S.R.T.C. VS. B.VIJAYA), a Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002 (2) C.T.C. 354 = 2002 (1) S.C.C. 367 (CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. INDRA), learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the rate of interest as pleaded by the plaintiff, has not been proved and as such, this Court has got discretion on equity to fix the rate of interest as 6% per annum and therefore, the judgm ent of both the Courts below on the said point is perfectly justified.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies ... vs M/S. Kesarimol Promod Kumar, Rep.By Its ... on 8 March, 2018

8. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, as per the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, interest rates prevailing have to be proved. In this case, admittedly, there is no clear evidence to prove the prevalent rate of interest. However, a Full Bench of this Court in a case reported in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. B. Vijaya held that after a review of the law that the Court has the discretion to award interest at a rate it considers just and equitable more so under Section 34 CPC.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - D V Somayajulu - Full Document

Dalip Kumar Sareen vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 March, 2011

This petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Dalip Kumar Sareen, petitioner, for the transfer of the case pertaining to the cancellation of FIR No. 63 dated 28.6.2008, registered under Sections 417, 419, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC in Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana, and the protest petition filed therein and titled "State Vs. Vijay B. Verma and Ors" from the Court of Sh. Ajay Mittal, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana to court of competent jurisdiction outside the District of Ludhiana.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1