Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.57 seconds)
Ishwarbhai Gokulbhai Surti vs K.M. Bhatt on 28 December, 2001 cites

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... vs Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. on 9 December, 1997

18. The petitioner, thereafter, raised a contention that orders passed by the respondent No.1 on 15.9.1982 and 21.7.1983 of the Act clubbing these three units for the purpose of determining coverage of the unit by an order dated 23.9.1983 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 19A of the Act approving the orders are illegal, erroneous and unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner further submitted that there was no unity of owners or management or control between these three establishments. It was further submitted by the petitioner that except for a common partner between M/s. S. Lovely & Company and M/s. H. Lovely Stores for a short period of about 3 & 1/2 months no person has been common partner at a given time. It was also submitted by the petitioner that merely because the petitioner's relative had control or management of the other units the three units cannot be clubbed. Lastly it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the other two concerns had started their business with their own capital brought along by their partners. For the purpose of showing that common ownership by itself is not enough, the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Another Vs. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co.Ltd., reported in 1998 (1) LLJ 1060. The petitioner has further submitted that even if it is assumed that the clubbing is permissible so long as the trading activity is not dominant, the Act cannot apply as for dominant and primary activity of the establishment, the Central Government has not issued any notification under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act. According to the petitioner the petitioner-concern and M/s. S. Lovely & Company are engaged exclusively in tailoring activity and are not trading as covered establishment engaged in purchase, sale, or storage of any goods. For this purpose, the petitioner has relied on the figures of tailoring receipts and net profits of the petitioner-concern as well as M/s. S. Lovely & Company. The petitioner has also given the figures of gross sales and net profit of M/s. H. Lovely Stores. On the basis of these figures, it was contended by the petitioner that as compared to the total receipt of the tailoring activities, the gross sales of cloth, i.e. trading activity was negligible and in this view of the matter the petitioner has submitted that even after clubbing the three concerns, the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to apply the provisions of the Act or the scheme to the petitioner-concern as it would not be an establishment within the meaning of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act. In support of this proposition, the petitioner has relied on number of authorities which are enumerated as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 43 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next