Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)
M/S Associated Aviation Pvt. Ltd vs The Presiding Officer on 4 February, 2011 cites

Management Of Monghyr Factory Of Itc ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ... on 24 July, 1978

Lastly, the case M/s Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi and another, (supra) relied on by ARW pertains to Patna High Court and it has persuasive value on the court situated in territory of Delhi whereas cases UCO Bank vs. The Presiding Officer & Another, (supra) and M/s Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and ors. (supra) of Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court are binding on this court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 68 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Uco Bank vs Presiding Officer & Another on 30 August, 1999

Lastly, the case M/s Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi and another, (supra) relied on by ARW pertains to Patna High Court and it has persuasive value on the court situated in territory of Delhi whereas cases UCO Bank vs. The Presiding Officer & Another, (supra) and M/s Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and ors. (supra) of Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court are binding on this court.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 574 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Bharat Iron Works vs Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors on 10 October, 1975

Lastly, the case M/s Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi and another, (supra) relied on by ARW pertains to Patna High Court and it has persuasive value on the court situated in territory of Delhi whereas cases UCO Bank vs. The Presiding Officer & Another, (supra) and M/s Bharat Iron Works vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and ors. (supra) of Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court are binding on this court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Excise, Bihar & Ors on 15 April, 1986

In Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excise, Bihar and others the Supreme Court held that though in the proviso to rule 147 of the Rules framed under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, the expression used was 'an excisable articles that expression did not embrace foreign liquor not imported under the bond because the main part of the rule, to which the proviso was appended applied only to foreign liquor imported under the bond. The proviso to Section 11-A of the Act will, therefore, come into play only when the wider powers of an appellate authority conferred on a Tribunal by Section 11-A are sought to be exercised by the Tribunal for ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the finding in the domestic enquiry. In matters not covered by the main Section, the proviso would not be attracted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 12 - G L Oza - Full Document

M/S Karuna Aluminium vs Presiding Officer Labour Court-Iii ... on 19 July, 2010

10. After considering the arguments of Ld. Authorized representative of workman and Ld. Counsel for management, and the principles of law laid down in above mentioned case, I am of the view that the case of M/s Indian Aluminium vs. The Presiding Officer (supra) relied on by ARW will not provide any benefit to the workman for the reasons, firstly, that facts of the present case and that case are different.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - P Krishna - Full Document
1