Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Chief Project Engineer (Now Chief ... vs Rameshwar And Ors on 23 January, 2020

Sh. Jai Singh (Since Deceased) vs M/S Bloom Public School on 31 March, 2023

"13. In a suit, a claim for relief made by the plaintiff against the defendant involves an investigation directed to the determination of (i) the plaintiff's right to relief; (ii) the corresponding (L.C No.1110/2016) (Sh. Jai Singh Vs. M/s Bloom Public School) Page No.12 of pages 19 liability of the defendant, including, whether the defendant is, at all, liable or not; and (iii) the extent of the defendant's liability, if any. The working out of such liability with a view to give relief is generally regarded as the function of an execution proceeding. Determination No. (iii) referred to above, that is to say, the extent of the defendant's liability may sometimes be left over for determination in execution proceedings. But that is not the case with the determinations under heads
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Azad Singh vs M/S Bloom Public School on 31 March, 2023

(i) and (ii) and represent the last stage in a process leading to final relief. Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself the functions-say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Amar Singh vs M/S Bloom Public School on 31 March, 2023

Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself the functions-say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation. In such cases, determinations (i) and (ii) are not 'Incidental' to the computation. The computation itself is consequential upon and subsidiary to determinations (i) and (ii) as the last stage in the process which commenced with a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aadhar Card And Phone Number Of Workman vs Z-43 on 25 May, 2023

Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot (LCA No.333/2016) (Sh. Ram Vinod Singh Vs. M/s Allied Holdings Ltd.) Page No.10 of pages 13 arrogate to itself the functions-say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation. In such cases, determinations (i) and (ii) are not 'Incidental' to the computation. The computation itself is consequential upon and subsidiary to determinations (i) and (ii) as the last stage in the process which commenced with a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Date Of Institution 01.12.2016 vs Sh. Vineet Khurana on 7 July, 2023

(i) and (ii). They are normally regarded as the functions of a suit and not an execution proceeding. Since a proceeding under section 33C (2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding it should follow that an investigation of the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) above is, normally, outside its scope. It is true that in a proceeding under section 33C (2), as in an execution proceeding, it may be necessary to determine the identity of the person by whom or against whom the claim is made if there is a challenge on that score. But that is merely 'Incidental'. To call determinations (i) and (ii) 'Incidental' to an execution proceeding would be a perversion, because execution proceedings in which the extent of liability is worked out are just consequential upon the determinations (i) and (ii) and represent the last stage in a process leading to final relief. Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself the functions-say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation. In such cases, determinations (i) and (ii) are not 'Incidental' to the computation. The computation itself is consequential upon and subsidiary to determinations (i) and (ii) as the last stage in the process which commenced with a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sriniwas Singh vs M/S Sanjay Textiles on 16 September, 2023

Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself the functions-say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation. In such cases, determinations (i) and (ii) are not 'Incidental' to the computation. The computation itself is consequential upon and subsidiary to determinations (i) and (ii) as the last stage in the process which commenced with a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahesh vs M/S Ramsawroop Das Subhash Chand Jain on 18 September, 2023

Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself the functions-say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation. In such cases, determinations (i) and (ii) are not 'Incidental' to the computation.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Kumar vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 17 November, 2023

(i) and (ii). They are normally regarded as the functions of a suit and not an execution proceeding. Since a LCA No. 565/2016 15 proceeding under section 33C (2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding it should follow that an investigation of the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) above is, normally, outside its scope. It is true that in a proceeding under section 33C (2), as in an execution proceeding, it may be necessary to determine the identity of the person by whom or against whom the claim is made if there is a challenge on that score. But that is merely 'Incidental'. To call determinations (i) and (ii) 'Incidental' to an execution proceeding would be a perversion, because execution proceedings in which the extent of liability is worked out are just consequential upon the determinations (i) and (ii) and represent the last stage in a process leading to final relief. Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself the functions-say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation. In such cases, determinations (i) and (ii) are not 'Incidental' to the computation. The computation itself is consequential upon and subsidiary to determinations (i) and (ii) as the last stage in the process which commenced with a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gobind Mani vs Kasha Paradox on 6 December, 2023

(i) and (ii). They are normally regarded as the functions of a suit and not an execution proceeding. Since a LCA No. 536/2016 9 proceeding under section 33C (2) is in the nature of an execution proceeding it should follow that an investigation of the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) above is, normally, outside its scope. It is true that in a proceeding under section 33C (2), as in an execution proceeding, it may be necessary to determine the identity of the person by whom or against whom the claim is made if there is a challenge on that score. But that is merely 'Incidental'. To call determinations (i) and (ii) 'Incidental' to an execution proceeding would be a perversion, because execution proceedings in which the extent of liability is worked out are just consequential upon the determinations (i) and (ii) and represent the last stage in a process leading to final relief. Therefore, when a claim is made before the Labour Court under section 33C (2) that court must clearly understand the limitations under which it is to function. It cannot arrogate to itself the functions-say of an Industrial Tribunal which alone is entitled to make adjudications in the nature of determinations (i) and (ii) referred to above, or proceed to compute the benefit by dubbing the former as 'Incidental' to its main business of computation. In such cases, determinations (i) and (ii) are not 'Incidental' to the computation. The computation itself is consequential upon and subsidiary to determinations (i) and (ii) as the last stage in the process which commenced with a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next