Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing National Textile Corpn. (South ... vs Bhagirathi Gopal Martal And Ors. on 13 September, 1990

National Textiles Corpn. (S.M.) Ltd. vs Girdharisingh Pratapsingh & Others on 24 July, 1997

9. Again in National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Ltd. v. Bhagirathi Gopal Martal & others, the Division Bench of this Court reiterated legal position that the liability incurred prior to the taking over is enforceable against the erstwhile company and cannot be fastened on N.T.C. In Bhagirathi Gopal Martal, the question involved before the Division Bench related to liability to pay gratuity to workmen which arose before taking over of the undertaking and the Division Bench with reference to section 3(7) of the Act of 1983 held thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

N.R.S. Sahasrabudhye (Smt.) vs Additional Custodian Of The National ... on 2 February, 1995

Both the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective Respondents contended that on identical issue was decided in favour of N.T.C. in the case of Bhagirathi Mortal (Supra) and in the circumstances Petitioner was not entitled to gratuity from N.T.C. According to the learned advocates, her claim was maintainable only against Kohinoor Mills because the liability accrued prior to October 18, 1983. Both the learned advocates contended on behalf of the Respondents that in view of Section 3(7) of the said act 1983, the assets of Kohinoor Mills were taken over in order to manage the Textile Undertaking properly and that liability of Kohinoor Mills was not taken over and, therefore, they were not liable to pay the gratuity because in the present case also the liability accrued prior to October, 1983.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

The President vs Indian Red Cross Society on 10 December, 2015

In NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (SOUTH MAHARASHTRA) LTD. VS. BHAGIRATHI 9 GOPAL MARTAL & OTHERS - 1992 II LLJ 111, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court was considering a similar question. In the said case, the workman was employed in the Textile Mill. He retired on 1.4.1983. As the gratuity due to him was not paid by the Textile Mill, he filed an application before the Controlling Authority for payment. The management of the Textile Mill was taken over by the Central Government on October, 18, 1983. Therefore, National Textile Corporation was made party in the proceedings before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority allowed the claim as against the Textile Mills and dismissed the claim against the National Textile Corporation. Since the workman died, his wife challenged the order of the Controlling Authority. According to her, the National Textile Corporation is also liable to pay the gratuity. The Appellate Authority accepted the claim and held that in the event of Textile Mill failing to deposit the gratuity, the amount shall be recoverable from the National Textile Corporation to the extent it had taken over the assets and other properties of 10 the Textile Mill. The National Textile Corporation challenged this order before the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the National Textile Corporation cannot be treated as an employer and it cannot be fastened with the liability to make payment of gratuity. It is held thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1