Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.43 seconds)
Dr.Aloys Wobben vs Intellectual Property Appellate Board on 20 September, 2013 cites

Shri Ambica Mills Co., Ltd vs Shri S. B. Bhatt And Another on 12 December, 1960

12. The learned counsel for the respondents has also made reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court rendered in SHRI AMBICA MILLS CO. LTD., V. SHRI S.B.BHATT AND ANOTHER (AIR 1961 Supreme Court 970. We are afraid that the ratio laid down therein does not support the case of the respondents. The facts involved therein are different, as the Honourable Apex Court itself was pleased to hold that the decision is rendered on the facts of the said case. More over, there was no dispute on the relationship of the employer and employee. The jurisdictional issue was on the question of granting relief. The Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold in the said case that the power was available with the authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wags Act, 1936 to go into the agreement. Therefore, the said judgment would only help the case of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 120 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Carona Ltd vs M/S Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons on 5 October, 2007

In other words, here an adjudicatory fact and a fact in issue get merged with the jurisdictional fact. This is only for the purpose of entertaining an application. If this stage is crossed and the case is taken up on merits, then the issue of jurisdictional fact goes and it becomes one of an adjudicatory fact and fact in issue. Considering the abovesaid question of law, it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court in CARONA LTD. V. PARVATHY SWAMINATHAN & SONS (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 559) as follows.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 79 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1