Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (1.56 seconds)
Documents citing Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand & Ors vs Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains ... on 16 July, 1968

Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd. vs Secy.Labour,Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 May, 2024

W. Because the Ld. Tribunal erred in holding that bonus was payable at least on the minimum wages as it overlooked the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghevar Chand Vs. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains, Kirana Merchants Workers Union (1969) 1 SCR 366, wherein, after considering the history of the legislation, the background and the circumstances in which the Bonus Act was enacted and the object of the Bonus Act and its scheme, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Bonus Act Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 567/2004 Page 19 of 50 Digitally Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:18.05.2024 18:01:21 is an exhaustive Act dealing comprehensively with the subject matter of bonus with all its aspects and the Parliament did not leave any issue open. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also repelled the arguments that if the Bonus Act were to be held as an exhaustive statute dealing with the subject of bonus, certain results would follow which could never have been expected, much less intended by the Parliament. In view of the above, even if it is contended that the Parliament could not have ever intended that bonus be not paid on the minimum wages payable, such contention is wholly unsustainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

School Managing Committee Of vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 4 May, 2021

In Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers Union, AIR 1969 SC 530, the apex Court held that reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is permissible for understanding the // 61 // background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute was sought to remedy.
Orissa High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

School Managing Committee Of vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 4 May, 2021

In Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers Union, AIR 1969 SC 530, the apex Court held that reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is permissible for understanding the // 61 // background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute was sought to remedy.
Orissa High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 16 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

S. Shanmukha Sundaram Pillai vs The Meenachil Rubber Marketing And ... on 7 April, 2022

For the construction of a particular provision, we can seek the aid of the statement of objects and reasons. The statement of objects and reasons can be legitimately used for ascertaining the object which the legislature had in mind, though not for construing the Act. (Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, AIR 1969 SC 530). Reference to the State- ment of Objects and Reasons is permissible for understanding the back- ground, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in re- lation to the statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. The weight of judicial authority leans in favour of the view that Statement of Ob- jects and Reasons cannot be utilized for the purpose of restricting and con- Writ Appeal No.1693 of 2018 -10- trolling the plain meaning of the language employed by the Legislature in drafting statute and excluding from its operation such transactions which it plainly covers.
Kerala High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer ... vs Union Of India on 26 July, 2022

Various statutory duties are imposed on Haj Committee by Section 9. There is an obligation to take approval to the budget estimates from the Central Government. He submitted that different classes of persons doing the same activity could be treated differently and not alike. He relied upon decisions of this Court in the cases of M. Jhangir Bhatusha & Ors. v. Union of 23 India & Ors.13, Bharat Surfactants (Private) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.14, P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 15 , Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand & Ors. v. Secretary, Madras Chillies Grains & Kirana Merchants Workers Union & Anr.16 and Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Workmen of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors17.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 2 - A Oka - Full Document

Afr vs Union Of India And Others ..... Opp. ... on 2 March, 2023

The Court must adopt that construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. This Court has followed this principle in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 661 (674); The Commissioner of Income tax, Patiala Vs. M/s Shahzada Nand & Sons, AIR 1966 SC 1342 (1347); Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand & Ors. Vs. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Mercants Workers Union & Anr., AIR 1969 SC 530 (533); Union of India Vs. Sankalachand Himatlal Sheth & Anr., AIR 1977 SC 2328 (2358) and K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1922 (1929).
Orissa High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

M/S Kay Pan Fragrances (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 23 May, 2022

15. It is well settled that the court can look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the purposes of deciphering the object and purposes of the Act. Reference to background and circumstances in which the Act was passed is permissible for appreciating the mischief, the legislature had in mind and the remedy which it wanted to provide for preventing that mischief. Reference to object and reasons is permissible for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. Reference in this regard may be had to judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Union of India, [AIR 1963 SC 1241], M/s. Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand and others Vs. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers Union and another, [AIR 1969 SC 530 (para-2)], Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr, [AIR 1972 SC 828 (para-4)], Narain Khamman Vs. Parduman Kumar Jain, [AIR 1985 SC 4 : 1985 1 SCC 1 (para-12)], State of H.P. Vs. Kailash Chand Mahajan, [AIR 1992 SC 1277 (para 77) : 1992 Suppl.
Allahabad High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Gopalpur Tea Co. Ltd. on 5 February, 1985

Therefore, if all the provisions and the title of the Act are considered, the Payment of Bonus Act is related only to three types of bonus which have been indicated above. This conclusion is well supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains & Kirana Merchants Workers Union AIR 1969 SC 530, Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai AIR 1976 SC 1455, Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd.'s case (supra), Baidyanath Ayurveda Bhawan Mazdoor Union v. Management of Shri Baidyanath Ayurveda Bhawan (P.) Ltd. AIR 1984 SC 457.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Deepak Jain vs Vijaya Leasing Ltd. on 5 September, 2002

In this connection, he relied on Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers Union AIR 1969 SC 530, Shri Ravi, therefore, emphasised that Section 117C operates retrospectively, that the application is maintainable in respect of the subject debentures which remain unpaid and that the Company may be directed to redeem the same forthwith.
Company Law Board Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjaybhai Induprasad Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2000

31...... Every word of a language is impregnated with and is flexible to connote different meaning, when used in different context. That is why it is said, words are static but dynamic and Courts must adopt its that dynamic meaning which uphold the validity of any provision. This dynamism is the cause of saving many statues of it being declared void, it dissolves the onslaught of any rigid and literal interpretation, it gives full thrust and satisfaction to achieve the objectivity which the legislature intended. Whenever there are two possible interpretations, its true meaning and legislature's intent has to be gathered, from the `Preamble', Statement of Objects and Reasons and other provisions of the same statute. In order to find true meaning of any word or what the Legislature intended, one has to go to the principle enunciated in the case (1584) 76 ER 637 : 3 Co Rep 7a, 9.7, which laid down the following principle as early in the sixteenth century. (1) What was the law before making of the Act; (2) What was the mischief or defect for which the law did not provide; (3) What is the remedy that the Act has provided; and (4) What is the reason of the remedy. The Court must adopt that construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. This Court has followed this principle in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661 (674); Commr. of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/s Shahzada Nand and Sons, AIR 1966 SC 1342 (1347); M/s Sanghvi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand v. Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers Union, AIR 1969 SC 530 (533), : (1969 Lab IC 530); Union of India V. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth, AIR 1977 SC 2328 *2358) : (1977 Lab IC 1857) and K.P.Varghese v. Income tax Officers, Ernakulam, AIR 1981 SC 1922 (1929) : (1981 Tax LR 1448 )."
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - H K Rathod - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next