Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)
Kohinoor Tailoring Works And Anr. vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 8 April, 2003 cites

Agarwal Hardware Industries vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 11 June, 1976

In the case of Agarwal Hardware Industries (supra), ANIL SEN, J., not only held that the Employees' Insurance Court is undoubtedly a special Tribunal and further held that in setting up such a Tribunal the Legislature did not set it up as one of the ordinary civil Courts in the hierarchy of Courts envisaged by Constitution. jUSTICE SEN further held that only some of the powers of ordinary civil Courts had been extended to these Tribunals and they are being deemed as Courts for limited purposes but these Tribunals are not Courts but are Tribunals.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Kerala State Electricity Board, ... vs T.P. Kunhaliumma on 29 October, 1976

28. According to the learned counsel of the petitioners, in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Sahu Jain Charitable Society (supra) this Hon'ble Court, following the larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma (supra), has held that residuary Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act applies not only to an application provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure but also to other applications under other statutes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 255 - A N Ray - Full Document

Regional Director, Employees State ... vs Shashikant Arikhindi And Anr. on 16 March, 1983

51. Although the petitioners referring to the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Shashikant (supra), submitted that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to an application filed before the Employees' Insurance Court but in my view, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was not at all concerned with the question as to whether provisions of the Limitation Act will apply to the substantive applications filed under Section 75 of the Act. The relevant portion from the said judgment is quoted hereunder:
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Employees State Insurance ... vs Central Press & Anr on 21 February, 1977

26. Sri Roy also submitted that in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Central Press (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Employees Insurance Court has not only a mandatory duty cast upon it under Section 75(2) of the ESI Act but it is armed with the powers of a civil Court, including summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects under Section 78 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 23 - M H Beg - Full Document

Sarojini Tea Co. (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Dibrugarh, Assam And Anr on 24 January, 1992

27. Referring to the decision reported in Sarojini Tea Co. v. Collector of Dibrugarh (supra) Sri Roy submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, has been pleased to hold that since there is nothing in the Ceiling Act which excludes the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to proceedings under the Ceiling Act, the said provisions are applicable in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 27 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 23 September, 1971

"On the question of limitation, the Employees' Insurance Court was clearly in error. It observed that the Court had dealt with a good number of similar cases and had passed judgments therein declaring that any demand of application made by any party after a period of three years from the date the cause of action arose was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act. Reference is also made to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (supra). Evidently the Insurance Court was in error in applying the provisions of the Limitation Act, to an application under the Employees' State Insurance Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 93 - P J Reddy - Full Document

Town Municipal Council, Athani vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli ... on 20 March, 1969

" .......It is well settled by the decisions of this Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hublu , Nityanand M. Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) and Sushila Devi v. Ramanandan Prasad , that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, apply only to proceedings in 'Courts' and not to appeals or applications before bodies other than Courts such as quasi-judicial Tribunals or executive authorities notwithstanding the fact that such bodies or authorities may be vested with certain specified powers conferred on Courts under the Codes of Civil or Criminal Procedure. The Collector before whom the appeal was preferred by the appellant herein under Section 90 of the Act not being a Court, the Limitation Act as such, had no applicability to the proceedings before him ......"
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 377 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Nityananda M. Joshi & Ors vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 25 April, 1969

" .......It is well settled by the decisions of this Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hublu , Nityanand M. Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) and Sushila Devi v. Ramanandan Prasad , that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, apply only to proceedings in 'Courts' and not to appeals or applications before bodies other than Courts such as quasi-judicial Tribunals or executive authorities notwithstanding the fact that such bodies or authorities may be vested with certain specified powers conferred on Courts under the Codes of Civil or Criminal Procedure. The Collector before whom the appeal was preferred by the appellant herein under Section 90 of the Act not being a Court, the Limitation Act as such, had no applicability to the proceedings before him ......"
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 172 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next