Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Marashtra General Kamgar Union, Bombay vs Universal Dyeing And Printing Works And ... on 14 March, 1996

P.Selvaraj vs The Presiding Officer on 10 January, 2011

In Workmen represented by Akhil Bhartiya Koyla Kamgar Union (supra), the concerned workmen were retrenched by the management of Industry Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. on 9.6.1971 owing to operational and financial problems and later on the management was taken over by the Central Government under the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 followed by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Ashish Chandrasingh Jhaveri vs Shri. Yashwant Ankush Bhandari And Ors on 15 January, 2019

11. The Division Bench of this Court in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v. Universal Dyeing and Printing Works (supra) and Food Corporation of India v. Prashant Pandurang Remteke (supra)-- has reiterated these principles and has held that to apply the principles of res judicata or principles akin to res judicata what is required is the parties must be the same, the matter must have been in issue and/ or could have been in issue directly and substantially and has been decided finally by a competent court having jurisdiction. It has been further held that a matter cannot be said to be directly and substantially in issue in a suit or lis unless it was alleged by one party and denied or admitted, either expressly or by necessary implication by the other.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Prabhudessai - Full Document

Ashish Chandrasingh Jhaveri vs Shri. Yashwant Ankush Bhandari And Ors on 15 January, 2019

11. The Division Bench of this Court in Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v. Universal Dyeing and Printing Works (supra) and Food Corporation of India v. Prashant Pandurang Remteke (supra)-- has reiterated these principles and has held that to apply the principles of res judicata or principles akin to res judicata what is required is the parties must be the same, the matter must have been in issue and/ or could have been in issue directly and substantially and has been decided finally by a competent court having jurisdiction. It has been further held that a matter cannot be said to be directly and substantially in issue in a suit or lis unless it was alleged by one party and denied or admitted, either expressly or by necessary implication by the other.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Prabhudessai - Full Document
1