Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.19 seconds)Orissa Cement Ltd And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Orissa And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 April, 1991
On careful consideration of the facts of the case in light of the rival submissions this Court is of the opinion that the decisions cited by the learned advocate of various High Courts, namely, Orissa, Bombay, Kerala and Calcutta are directly on the point. Orissa High Court in its decision of Orissa Cement Limited v. State of Orissa and Ors., 1995 II CLR 384 (supra) has taken a view that, 'consent is not required to be an express consent', 'it can be an implied consent', which can be ascertained from the circumstances and conduct of the party'. What is required to be considered thereafter is as to whether, once such an implied consent is given can be withdrawn by the party at a later stage or not. Mr.Patel, the learned advocate submitted that such consent cannot be withdrawn as held by this this Court (Coram: M.R. Calla, J.)
J.B. Transport Company And Ors. vs Shankarlal @ Mavaram Nathuji Patel on 22 July, 1998
(ii) Decision dated 09.12.1998 of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: C.K. Thakker & A.L. Dave, JJ.) in the matter of J.B. Transport Company and Ors. v. Shankarlal @ Mavaram Nathuji Patel in Letters Patent Appeal No.1101 of 1998 arising from the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay vs Meher (M.R.) (Industrial Tribunal, ... on 12 January, 1965
7. The learned advocate next relied upon a judgement of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in the matter of Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay v. Meher (M.R.) (Industrial Tribunal, Bombay) and Ors., reported in 1966 I LLJ 580. There the employer was allowed to be represented by a lawyer at the commencement of hearing without objection. Whereas on a subsequent occasion appearance of the lawyer was objected to. The High Court was pleased to hold that the objection at a subsequent stage is not permissible. Besides, the High Court also held that absence of specific objection would be taken to be implied consent.
Prasar Bharati Broadcasting ... vs Shri Suraj Pal Sharma & Anr. on 7 December, 1998
(iv) Decision of Delhi High Court in the matter of Prasar Bharathi Broadcasting Corporation of India v. Suraj Pal Sharma and Anr., reported in 1999 I LLJ 184.
Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen on 9 September, 1976
(vii) Decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen, reported in 1976 II LLJ 409.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Calicut Co-Operative Milk Supply Union vs Calicut Co-Operative Milk Supply ... on 31 March, 1986
8. The learned advocate also relied upon a decision of Kerala High Court in the matter of Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Union v. Calicut Cooperative Milk Supply Workers Union, reported in 1986 II LLJ 422 and a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in the matter of Shiraz Golden Restaurant v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2000 II LLJ 1101. Last but not least the learned advocate also relied upon a decision of this Court (Coram: M.R. Calla, J.) in Special Civil Application No.8301 of 1995 dated 10.10.1995.