Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)
M.P. Medical & Sales Representative ... vs Senior General Manager Camlin Ltd on 25 January, 2012
cites
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. vs Manubhai Motilal Vin And Ors. on 6 April, 1955
"The Act contained no provisions bearing on this
question, which must, consequently, be decided on the
principles governing the jurisdiction of Courts to
entertain actions or proceedings. Dealing with a similar
question under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial
Relations Act, 1946, Chagla, C. J., observed in Lalbhai
Tricumlal Mills Ltd. v. Vin, 1956-1 Lab LJ 557, 558 :
(AIR 1955 Bom 463 at p. 464) :
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Management Of Indian Cable Co., ... vs Its Workmen on 5 March, 1962
In our view the High
Court was right in holding that the proper question to
raise is : where did the dispute arise ? Ordinarily, if
there is a separate establishment and the workman is
working in that establishment, the dispute would arise
at that place. As the High Court observed, there should
clearly be some nexus between the dispute and the
territory of the State and not necessarily between the
territory of the State and the industry concerning which
the dispute arose. This Court in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v.
Its Workmen, (1962) I Lab LJ 409 (SC) held as follows :
Rajasthan High Court Advocates ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 December, 2000
has acquired a judicially settled
meaning. In the restricted sense "cause
of action" means the circumstances
forming the infraction of the right or the
immediate occasion for the reaction. In
the wider sense, it means the necessary
conditions for the maintenance of the
suit, including not only the infraction of
the right, but also the infraction coupled
with he right itself. Compendiously, as
noted above, the expression means very
fact, which it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to
support his right to the judgment of the
12
court. Every fact, which is necessary to
be proved, as distinguished from every
piece of evidence, which is necessary to
prove each fact, comprises in "cause of
action". (See Rajasthan High Court
Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India
[(2001) 2 SCC 294] )
Bikash Bhushan Ghosh & Ors vs M/S. Novartis India Limited & Anr on 27 April, 2007
The
Apex Court has again in the case of Bikash Bhushan Ghosh (supra) had an
occasion to consider the issue of cause of action or a part of cause of action and
in the said judgment the principles so laid down for determination of the issue of
jurisdiction by the Full Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Paritosh
Kumar Pal (supra) is liable to affirm.
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 September, 2000
is generally understood to mean a
situation or state of facts that entitles a
party to maintain an action in a court or
a tribunal; a group of operative facts
giving rise to one or more bases of
suing; a factual situation that entitles
one person to obtain a remedy in court
from another person (see Black's Law
Dictionary). In Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated
to be the entire set of facts that gives
rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase
comprises every fact, which if traversed,
the plaintiff must prove in order to
obtain judgment. In Words and Phrases
(4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the
phrase "cause of action" in common
legal parlance is existence of those
facts, which give a party a right to
judicial interference on his behalf. (See
Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of
Maharashtra [(2000) 7 SCC 640 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 215]"