Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)
Radha Kishan Sharma And Ors. vs Rajasthan Financial Corporation And ... on 8 July, 1986 cites

Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978

In the aforesaid case of Bangalore Water Supply (supra) triple test has been laid down and if that satisfies them, an establishment is an industry. They are (i) systematic activity (ii) organised by co-operation between employer and employee (the direct and substantial element is chimerical) and (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or services geared to calestial bliss i.e. making on a large scale prasad or food, prima facie there is an industry in that enterprise. It has also been held that the absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private or other sector. A look at Chapter III of the 1951 Act will show that among the business which financial Corporation may transact, (he following kinds of businesses namely, granting on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon loans raised by industrial concerns which are repayable within a period not exceeding twenty years and are floated in the public market etc. are included. Therefore, to my mind there can be no doubt that the Corporation is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the ID Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 985 - M H Beg - Full Document

Syrya Narain Yadav & Ors vs Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors on 8 May, 1985

In case of Surya Narain (supra) the appointments of trainee engineers by the Bihar State Electricity Board represented by the trainee engineers from time to time that after their training was completed, they would be absorbed in regular employment of the Board. When some of the engineers were getting age-barred from government service, and had left the Board, they were told to come back under the temptation of getting permanently employed under the Board and when the Board was reeling under a strike of its employees, these trainee engineers had stood by the Board to keep up the generation and distribution of electricity and had been assured of absorption and the Board had decided to absorb them on permanent basis but initially on a probation of two years without conducting any further examination. The trainee engineers continued as such since long although the Board treated them as specific class. It was held that under the facts and circumstances of the case the defence of the Board was ill-placed and could not hold as a shield against the application of the equitable doctrine and the trainee engineers formed a specific class and from time to time the the Board treated them as members of a class.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 56 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1   2 Next