Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.34 seconds)Section 1 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Chit Funds Act, 1982
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Hyderabad Race Club on 28 July, 2004
i. A ’race-club’ is an ’establishment’ as rightly
held in the case of Employees State Insurance
Corporation v. Hyderabad Race Club (2004) 6 SCC
191;
Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant vs Dy. Director , Esi Corpn. And Anr on 2 September, 2009
72. We find that the term ’shop’ as urged to be
understood and interpreted in its traditional sense would
not serve the purpose of the ESI Act. Further in light of
the judgments discussed above and in particular the
Cochin Shipping Case (supra) and the Bombay Anand Bhavan
Case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that an
expansive meaning may be assigned to the word ’shop’ for
60
the purposes of the ESI Act. As has been found above, the
activities of the Appellant-Turf Clubs is in the nature
of organised and systematic transactions, and further
that the said Turf Clubs provide services to members as
well as public in lieu of consideration. Therefore, the
Appellant-Turf Clubs are a ‘shop’ for the purpose of
extending the benefits under the ESI Act.
The Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948
Directorate Of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan on 31 January, 1994
65. Furthermore, in the case of Deepak Mahajan
(supra), at paragraph 24 quotes Maxwell on Interpretation
of Statutes, Tenth Edn. at page 229, wherein t
he
following passage is found:
Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961
State Of Orissa & Other vs The Tltaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd.& ... on 1 March, 1985
In the case of State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper
Mills Co. Ltd., 1985 Supp SCC 280, this Court was
concerned with determining the meaning of the terms
’timber’ and ’logs’ for the purpose of levying purchase
tax. It was the contention of the State that the meaning
of the said terms must be ascertained in common parlance.
In this context it was held that (at page 374):
State Of U.P vs Hari Ram on 11 March, 2013
In the case of State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013)
4 SCC 280, this Court was faced with the question of
ascertaining the meaning of ’acquired’ and ’vested’ for
the purpose of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976. This Court not only referred to
the dictionary meanings assigned to these terms, but also
placed heavy reliance to the context in which the words
were used. This Court observed that: