Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs.Kiran Uppal Prop. M/S Clas vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 16 May, 2012

State vs . Ashok & Ors. Digitally on 25 April, 2022

18. It emerged from the facts as has been brought on record and proved that there was all of sudden fight between the accused persons, complainant and remaining injured. The injuries inflicted on the injured persons do not fall within the ambit of causing death as the injuries are simple in nature. PW12 i.e. the doctor concerned has also not opined that the same could have resulted into the death of injured persons. So the prosecution has failed to prove the per-meditated act on the part of accused persons to commit the offence. Moreover, the doctor has also nowhere opined that the injuries are danger to Digitally signed by KIRAN State Vs. Ashok & ors. KIRAN GUPTA Page no. 17 of 18 GUPTA Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurukrupa Procons Pvt Ltd vs Abhesinh Nathabhai Damor on 15 February, 2024

(c) Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the decision relied upon by learned advocate for the workmen of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.Kiran Uppal Prop. M/S Clas vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. reported in (2000) 9 SCC 534 that 17B application shall be listed and disposed of first would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. So far as the contentions raised by learned advocate for the respondent that the Company Page 27 of 29 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 15 20:53:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17914/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2024 undefined filed this petition after issuance of notice under Sections 154 and 155 of Bombay Land Revenue Code for attachment of movable property does not merit acceptance because settlement u/s 2(p) of the Act dated 24.01.2000 refers to the closure of the company in the year 1997. Once the company is closed service of notice cannot be presumed. Another contention raised that the settlement does not refer to bonus and gratuity, is also of no consequence since the settlement refers to full and final settlement wherein the workmen had accepted ex- gratia payment on condition that no dues are outstanding with the Company. In view of the above, particularly, in view of the reference being raised after period of 19 years and by suppressing the fact of settlement u/s 2(p), this Court is of the opinion that a deliberate attempt was made on the part of the workmen to initiate the dispute by playing fraud and on misrepresentation of facts. This Court also would like to observe that the findings recorded by this court in the case of similarly situated co-workers in Special Civil Application No.4520 of 2017 are also to be reiterated that here is a case in which ex- facie an attempt of abuse of process is visible by the Court, and therefore, the Court is not in a position to not notice this conduct of the part of the respondents and remain a silent spectator. On the contrary in the Page 28 of 29 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 15 20:53:25 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17914/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2024 undefined larger interest of public, and to maintain sanctity of the proceedings, such reference proceedings are held to be not tenable and deserved to be curbed at initial stage itself.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siya Ram Kumar vs P.O. & Promod Kumar Tyagi on 22 January, 2026

25. Learned counsel for the respondent also draws attention to Kiran Uppal v. Ashok Kumar 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2858, wherein this Court reaffirmed that Section 17B of the ID Act must be interpreted in line with its object and purpose, that is, to ensure that a workman receives subsistence wages from the date of the award until the challenge to that award is finally adjudicated. It was held that transient or intermittent employment does not bar relief under Section 17B of the ID Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1