Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing The Central Weaving And Mfg. Co., Bombay vs Mill Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay And Anr. on 12 March, 1969

Arun S/O Punjabrao Ghanvate And Ors. vs Hon'Ble Chancellor Amravati ... on 24 December, 1996

In that behalf, the learned Counsel relied on M/s. Jalan trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha , wherein it was held that under the power of removal of difficulties, the executive cannot legislate. Mr. Gordey also strongly urged that as already the Vice-Chancellor had issued directions under Section 14(8) of the said Act, defining the voter for the election of Boards of Studies, on 5.9.1994, there was no need whatsoever for the State Government to issue clarifications on 20.12.1994, under Section 116 of the said Act. In any event, such clarifications cannot run contrary to the directions of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 14(8) of the said Act, which have the force of Statutes framed under the said Act. Mr. Gordey also contended that the Chancellor's ruling dated 1.10.1996, applies to only such Boards of Studies where actually elections were held and not in cases of Boards of Studies, where the number of valid nominations were equal to or less than the number required, accordingly in 34 Boards of Studies, where no actual elections were held and those who were validly nominated were declared elected without a contest. In this behalf, he also relied on a letter issued by the Secretary to the Chancellor dated 16.10.1996.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anglo-French Textile Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal on 8 February, 1972

This observation is not of universal application. It is only in a case where profits could not be ascertained without deducting the liabilities and if the liabilities are capable of immediate and certain ascertainment then they ought to be debited to the profits. I do not think that the item in question in the instant case is so capable of evaluation and in any event it cannot be said that without deducting the gratuity in a lump sum the profits cannot be ascertained. On the other hand, it would be reasonable for a public company so truncate such gratuity payable to the employees on their retirement and spread it over years so that the shareholders may be benefited and the profits might increase. Central Weaving and Manufacturing Company, Bombay v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay 196911 L.L.J (S.N) 65, was a case where the company was maintaining accounts in a mercantile system. The Supreme Court expatiating the principle of mercantile system held that in such a system of accounting amounts would be credited and debited as they accrued due and not when they were actually received or expended. That this is the main indicia of mercantile system cannot be denied. But, in the instant case whether the totality of the gratuity amount should have been debited soon after the finding of the Textile Arbitration Committee is a moot question. It has no bearing on the system of accounting because it cannot be predicted that it was an amount which accrued as payable even in the next year of the arbitration award. In all the above cases the facts were borne in mind before directions were given by the Supreme Court as above. The Textile Arbitration Committee, while providing a gratuity benefit for the workers, since there was no provident fund, during the years 1936 to 1955, said:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1