Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.26 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 284 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 266 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bombay Dyeing &Manufacturing Co., Ltd vs The State Of Bombay And Others on 20 December, 1957
(12) Lastly, the contributions made by the employees and the eir'ployers to the Labour Welfare Fund which is in the nature of a Provident Fund were held to be payable to the employees for whose benefit the contributions were made and not to the Government or any other authority (The State of Gujarat v. The Arvind Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, , and Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd., v. State of Bombay, ).
A. M. Allison vs B. L. Sen(And Connected Appeal) on 21 December, 1956
(22) In A.M. Alison v. B. L. Sen, , , the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, purporting to fix minimum wages was challenged as being without jurisdiction. On the facts stated there was a prima facie case to show that the said order might not be supported by section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. But their lordships observed in paragraph 16 of the judgment :-
Durga Prashad vs Chief Controller Of Imports & Exports & ... on 22 November, 1968
(24) These observations were followed by S.M. Sikri and K. S. Hegde Jj (in Durga Prasad v. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports , to make the point that the relief under Article 226 is discretionary.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj on 26 March, 1962
(25) High Courts have refused to interfere in their writ jurisdiction when not called upon to do so in the interests of justice. The reason is that the remedy sought by the petitioners under Article 226 is not as of right but is in the discretion of this Court. (State of U.P. v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj, .