Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 143 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs Phool Chand on 18 May, 2018

Shri Rajendra Dubey vs M.P. Ware Housing And Logistics ... on 18 August, 2025

The same will be applicable to the case of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 8/19/2025 6:02:22 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:38942 4 WP-32756-2024 petitioner. Under these circumstances, the order impugned is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs Phool Chand (supra). The order dated 30.07.2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for reconsideration of the application seeking setting aside ex parte award. The Labour Court is expected to consider the sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for the delay.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharat Singh Kirar vs M.P. Ware Housing And Logistics ... on 4 November, 2024

The counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that the application for setting aside ex parte award was filed beyond the period of 30 days of its publication without assigning proper reason for the delay in filing the same. Therefore, the impugned order has Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 05-11-2024 16:35:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54184 2 WP-32752-2024 rightly been passed. However, the fact remains that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs Phool Chand (supra), ex parte award can always be set aside by the Labour Court/Industrial Court if sufficient cause is shown for the delay in approaching the Court. The relevant para reads as follows :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

M/S. Karaikal Co-Op Milk Supply Society vs V.Ramakrishnan on 12 March, 2025

“12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2018 (16) SCC 567 in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited Vs Phool Chand, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in case a party is in a position to show sufficient cause for its absence before the Labour Court/ Tribunal when it was set ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal, in exercise of its ancillary or incidental powers, is competent to entertain such an application. That power cannot be circumscribed by limitation. What is the sufficient cause and whether its jurisdiction is invoked within a reasonable time should be left to the judicious discretion of the Labour Court/Tribunal.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Management vs The Presiding Officer on 17 July, 2023

In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited Vs. Phool Chand reported in 2018 (16) SCC 567 is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 W.P. No. 5282 of 2017 squarely applicable to the case on hand. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereunder :-
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

Mahendra Kumar Deceased And Others vs Chhawali Devi Deceased And Another on 28 April, 2023

33. The other family members of the present appellants who were residing at Kala Aam, Bulandshahr were sufficiently served and it is not the case of the appellant that he had no communication with other family members residing at Kala Aam, Bulandshahr. How can it be accepted that the appellant had no knowledge about pendency of the appeal once notice was found to have been duly served upon him by the lower appellate court. In the circumstances, it can be conveniently observed that the defendant-appellant failed to establish fact that he had no knowledge of the proceeding of the appeal and he was prevented from appearing in the court on account of transfer of the appeal from the court of the District Judge, Bulandshahr to the court of the Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr when the appeal was called out for hearing. That being the case, the principle of the aforecited case of Ram Padarath and another Vs. Smt. Chiraunji Devi 2015 (2) ADJ 619, by the plaintiff-respondents is very much attracted and applicable in the present case, whereas, on account of above discussion, it is obvious that the following cases cited by the appellant's counsel; Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. Vs. Phool Chand, 2018 (16) SCC 567.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Labour Federation vs The Presiding Officer on 4 July, 2023

12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2018 (16) SCC 567 in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Limited Vs Phool Chand, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in case a party is in a position to show sufficient cause for its absence before the Labour Court/ Tribunal when it was set ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal, in exercise of its ancillary or incidental powers, is Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35391 and 35392 of 2013 competent to entertain such an application. That power cannot be circumscribed by limitation. What is the sufficient cause and whether its jurisdiction is invoked within a reasonable time should be left to the judicious discretion of the Labour Court/Tribunal.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next