Shiraz Golden Restaurant vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 16 March, 2000
In Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union v. Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Workers Union, it is stated in (1986-II-LLJ-422 at 422, 423) :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.43 seconds)Documents citing
Calicut Co-Operative Milk Supply Union vs Calicut Co-Operative Milk Supply ... on 31 March, 1986
Indrasan Parsad vs Presiding Officer And Anr. on 16 November, 2007
31. The first judgment is Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union v. Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Workers Union 1986(II) L.L.J. 422. In this case the Co-operative Society appeared through an Advocate and the Workers Union also appeared through an Advocate. After a few years the Union prayed that it be allowed to conduct the case without the consent of a lawyer and simultaneously objected to the Co-operative Society from being represented by its lawyer. This request was not allowed. The Kerala High Court came to the following conclusion:
Salvation Army vs Sunil J. Ingle on 8 April, 2005
The same view has been taken by the High Court of Kerala in Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union v. Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Workers Union, 1986(11) L.L.J. 422 and in Francis Gomez v. President, Thiruvananthapuram Shops & Commercial Employees' Union, 1999(III) L.L.J. (Supp.) 1250.
Nadia Dist. Central Co-Operative Bank ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 June, 2008
In the case of Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union
(supra) at the initial stage, the petitioner and one of the respondents (first
respondent in that case) had engaged their learned Advocates, who had filed
vokalatnama on their behalf. Thereafter, the latter sought leave of the Court to
conduct the case without the assistance of a lawyer and prayer was made for
cancellation of the vokalatnama filed on its behalf. Simultaneous prayer was
made objecting to appearance of the writ petitioner through its Advocate. This
objection was sustained by the adjudicatory forum but the order of the
adjudicatory forum was set aside by the High Court, as it was opined by the
Hon'ble Single Judge hearing the case that the conduct of the said respondent
amounted to revocation of the consent already given. None of these authorities
assist the petitioner's case, in its own factual context.
National Horticultural Research vs P.Murugesan on 12 July, 2010
In support
of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon
the judgment of this Court reported in 2007(1) LLN 449 in the case of
Management,Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Ltd., Chennai Car
Plant, Thruvalloore vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and
others, 1986(II) LLJ 422 [Kerala] in the case of Calicut Co-operative Milk
Supply Union vs. Calicut Co-oerative Mil Supply Workers Union and in 1992(1)
L.L.N.972 AllaHabad, in the case of I.C.I.India Ltd., vs. Labour Court (IV) and
another and in 1991(63) FLR 635. Calcultta in the case of M/s.Durgapur Cinema
and another vs. 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur and others.
Rajkumari vs M/S Maharaja Agrasen Hospital on 3 October, 2013
In a
similar circumstance, a single judge of Kerala High
Court in the case of Calicut Cooperative Milk
Supply Union v. Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply
Workers' Union 1986 LAB 1.C. 1981 has held that
consent can be inferred from the conduct of the
party and the consent once given by a party
entitling the other party to be represented in the
proceedings by an advocate would ensure to his
benefit till the proceedings are finally disposed.
Jai Prakash Dubey vs M/S Maheshwari Gas Service on 24 November, 2016
This Court referred
to the judgment in the case of Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Union v.
Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Workers' Union 1986 Labour
Industrial Cases 1681, wherein, it was held that consent can be inferred
from the conduct of the parties and the consent once given by a party
entitling the other party to be represented in the proceedings by an
advocate would enure to his benefit till the proceedings are finally
disposed.
Ved Praksh Dubey vs M/S Maheshwari Gas Service on 24 November, 2016
This Court referred
to the judgment in the case of Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Union v.
Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Workers' Union 1986 Labour
Industrial Cases 1681, wherein, it was held that consent can be inferred
from the conduct of the parties and the consent once given by a party
entitling the other party to be represented in the proceedings by an
advocate would enure to his benefit till the proceedings are finally
disposed.
Baroda Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs Ramgopal M. Patel And Ors. on 9 September, 2004
8. The learned advocate also relied upon a decision of Kerala High Court in the matter of Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Union v. Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Workers Union, reported in 1986 II LLJ 422 and a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in the matter of Shiraz Golden Restaurant v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2000 II LLJ 1101. Last but not least the learned advocate also relied upon a decision of this Court (Coram: M.R. Calla, J.) in Special Civil Application No.8301 of 1995 dated 10.10.1995.
Ram Bachan Soni vs M/S Maheshwari Gas Service on 24 November, 2016
This Court referred
to the judgment in the case of Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Union v.
Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Workers' Union 1986 Labour
Industrial Cases 1681, wherein, it was held that consent can be inferred
from the conduct of the parties and the consent once given by a party
entitling the other party to be represented in the proceedings by an
advocate would enure to his benefit till the proceedings are finally
disposed.