Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
National Insurance Company Ltd., ... vs Lachhibai Urf Laxmibai And Ors. on 27 February, 1996 cites

Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial ... on 12 December, 1980

Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606. This case relates to Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question which was considered was that whether an ex parte award passed by the Industrial Tribunal can be set aside under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. in the absence of specific provision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 558 - A P Sen - Full Document

Satnam Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 19 October, 1984

Similarly, in Satnam Verma's case (AIR 1985 SC 294) (supra), considering the scope of powers of the Tribunal under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was held that the Tribunal is endowed with such ancillary or incidental power as are necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties. The jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal under the wide powers cannot be denied by the Tribunal itself.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 80 - D A Desai - Full Document

Jai Singh And Anr. vs N.A. Subramaniam And Anr. on 2 June, 1982

10. The procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal are provided under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Subsection (1) of Section 169 provides that the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. Similar provision is provided under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jai Singh v. N, A. Subramaniam, AIR 1982 Punj & Har 407, has considered the scope of Section 100C of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. While considering the powers of the Claims Tribunal regarding the sentence "The Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit, the Court held that the Tribunal is at liberty to follow any procedure that it may chose to evolve itself so long as the said procedure is not arbitrary, is consistent with the rules of natural justice, and does not contravene the positive provisions of law, When such a wide power exists in the Tribunal, there will absolutely be no justification to reconstruct the exercise of that power on the ground that the legislature impliedly intended to do so by not applying all provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to do justice and to achieve the purpose for which it has been constituted, a constituted, a Tribunal would have inherent power to apply all or any of the procedures of the C.P.C. on principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The Supreme Court while considering the scope of the similar provisions under Section 11 of Industrial Disputes Act, held that the power of review is not inherent power, it must be conferred cither specifically or by necessary implication. SubSections (1) and (3) of Section 11 of the Act themselves make a distinction between procedure and powers of the Tribunal under the Act -- while the procedure is left to be derived by the Tribunal to suit carrying out of its functions under the Act, the powers of the Civil Court conferred upon it are clearly defined.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1