Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 9A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Kishan Chand Arora vs Commissioner Of Police, Calcutta on 9 December, 1960
22. Before parting with the judgment, let it be recorded here that in order to substantiate his contention that the impugned order as passed by Respondent No. 1 was bad in law as it was mala fide arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, Mr. Naphade took me through various judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts. These judgments are in cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, (1967-II-LLJ-266) Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others , A. K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others , Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , Papanasam Fishermen Co-op. Society Ltd., and another v. The Collector of Thanjavur and others , Jose Kuttiyani and others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, Trivandrum and others , M/s. Jiwat Bai and sons v. G. C. Batra and others , Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others , Yesho Nathu Mahajan and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others , Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., v. The Income Tax Officer, Nagpur , Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others (1979-II-LLJ-217), Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal and another and Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India etc. . I do not think it is necessary to deal with these judgments as, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the well settled law on the point, I am of the view that the impugned order is neither mala fide nor arbitrary nor passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
22. Before parting with the judgment, let it be recorded here that in order to substantiate his contention that the impugned order as passed by Respondent No. 1 was bad in law as it was mala fide arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, Mr. Naphade took me through various judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts. These judgments are in cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, (1967-II-LLJ-266) Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others , A. K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others , Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , Papanasam Fishermen Co-op. Society Ltd., and another v. The Collector of Thanjavur and others , Jose Kuttiyani and others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, Trivandrum and others , M/s. Jiwat Bai and sons v. G. C. Batra and others , Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others , Yesho Nathu Mahajan and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others , Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., v. The Income Tax Officer, Nagpur , Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others (1979-II-LLJ-217), Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal and another and Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India etc. . I do not think it is necessary to deal with these judgments as, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the well settled law on the point, I am of the view that the impugned order is neither mala fide nor arbitrary nor passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
22. Before parting with the judgment, let it be recorded here that in order to substantiate his contention that the impugned order as passed by Respondent No. 1 was bad in law as it was mala fide arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, Mr. Naphade took me through various judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts. These judgments are in cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, (1967-II-LLJ-266) Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others , A. K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others , Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , Papanasam Fishermen Co-op. Society Ltd., and another v. The Collector of Thanjavur and others , Jose Kuttiyani and others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, Trivandrum and others , M/s. Jiwat Bai and sons v. G. C. Batra and others , Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others , Yesho Nathu Mahajan and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others , Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., v. The Income Tax Officer, Nagpur , Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others (1979-II-LLJ-217), Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal and another and Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India etc. . I do not think it is necessary to deal with these judgments as, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the well settled law on the point, I am of the view that the impugned order is neither mala fide nor arbitrary nor passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Jose Kuttiyani And Ors. vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 28 July, 1981
22. Before parting with the judgment, let it be recorded here that in order to substantiate his contention that the impugned order as passed by Respondent No. 1 was bad in law as it was mala fide arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, Mr. Naphade took me through various judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts. These judgments are in cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, (1967-II-LLJ-266) Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others , A. K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others , Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , Papanasam Fishermen Co-op. Society Ltd., and another v. The Collector of Thanjavur and others , Jose Kuttiyani and others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, Trivandrum and others , M/s. Jiwat Bai and sons v. G. C. Batra and others , Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others , Yesho Nathu Mahajan and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others , Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., v. The Income Tax Officer, Nagpur , Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others (1979-II-LLJ-217), Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal and another and Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India etc. . I do not think it is necessary to deal with these judgments as, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the well settled law on the point, I am of the view that the impugned order is neither mala fide nor arbitrary nor passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Nandlal Khodidas Barot vs Bar Council Of Gujarat And Ors. on 24 September, 1980
22. Before parting with the judgment, let it be recorded here that in order to substantiate his contention that the impugned order as passed by Respondent No. 1 was bad in law as it was mala fide arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, Mr. Naphade took me through various judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts. These judgments are in cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, (1967-II-LLJ-266) Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others , A. K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others , Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , Papanasam Fishermen Co-op. Society Ltd., and another v. The Collector of Thanjavur and others , Jose Kuttiyani and others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, Trivandrum and others , M/s. Jiwat Bai and sons v. G. C. Batra and others , Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others , Yesho Nathu Mahajan and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others , Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., v. The Income Tax Officer, Nagpur , Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others (1979-II-LLJ-217), Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal and another and Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India etc. . I do not think it is necessary to deal with these judgments as, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the well settled law on the point, I am of the view that the impugned order is neither mala fide nor arbitrary nor passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Yesho Nathu Mahajan And Anr. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 11 October, 1979
22. Before parting with the judgment, let it be recorded here that in order to substantiate his contention that the impugned order as passed by Respondent No. 1 was bad in law as it was mala fide arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, Mr. Naphade took me through various judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts. These judgments are in cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, (1967-II-LLJ-266) Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others , A. K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others , Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , Papanasam Fishermen Co-op. Society Ltd., and another v. The Collector of Thanjavur and others , Jose Kuttiyani and others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, Trivandrum and others , M/s. Jiwat Bai and sons v. G. C. Batra and others , Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others , Yesho Nathu Mahajan and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others , Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., v. The Income Tax Officer, Nagpur , Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others (1979-II-LLJ-217), Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal and another and Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India etc. . I do not think it is necessary to deal with these judgments as, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the well settled law on the point, I am of the view that the impugned order is neither mala fide nor arbitrary nor passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd vs The Income-Tax Officer, Nagpur on 16 April, 1970
22. Before parting with the judgment, let it be recorded here that in order to substantiate his contention that the impugned order as passed by Respondent No. 1 was bad in law as it was mala fide arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, Mr. Naphade took me through various judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts. These judgments are in cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, (1967-II-LLJ-266) Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others , A. K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others , Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , Papanasam Fishermen Co-op. Society Ltd., and another v. The Collector of Thanjavur and others , Jose Kuttiyani and others v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, Trivandrum and others , M/s. Jiwat Bai and sons v. G. C. Batra and others , Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others , Yesho Nathu Mahajan and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others , Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., v. The Income Tax Officer, Nagpur , Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others (1979-II-LLJ-217), Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal and another and Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India etc. . I do not think it is necessary to deal with these judgments as, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the well settled law on the point, I am of the view that the impugned order is neither mala fide nor arbitrary nor passed in violation of principles of natural justice.