Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Shiraz Golden Restaurant vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 16 March, 2000 cites

Reckitt And Colman Of India Ltd. And Ors. vs Jitendra Nath Maitra And Ors. on 27 April, 1956

8. This section does not prescribe that the consent must be given in a particular manner or in a particular form. If that be so, the consent of a party which is the basis for the grant of leave to the other party for being represented by a lawyer in a proceeding under the I.D. Act, can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances as also the conduct of the consenting party. Consent can be implied. The section does not insist upon a written consent. Consent once given cannot be revoked at a later stage because there is no provision in the I.D. Act enabling such withdrawal or revocation. To put it pithily the consent once given by a party, entitling the other party to be represented in the proceeding, by a lawyer would enure to his benefit till the proceeding is finally disposed of, I am fortified in this view by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Reckitt and Colman v. Jitendra Nath, (supra).
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Prasar Bharati Broadcasting ... vs Shri Suraj Pal Sharma & Anr. on 7 December, 1998

In Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (Supra) whereupon Delhi High Court in Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India, (supra) placed strong reliance, the question was that as to whether a retainer of a company would be legal practitioner within the meaning of the aforementioned provision although instead of Vakalatnama a power of attorney was executed in his favour by the employee.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 22 - C Joseph - Full Document

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen on 9 September, 1976

In support of the said contention, reliance had been placed on Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen, , Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi and Ors., Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Employees Union and Ors., reported in (1998-I-LLJ-704) (Cal-DB) & Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation erf India v. Shri Suraj Pal Sharma and Anr., reported in (1999-I- LLJ-1306) (Del).
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 180 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay vs Meher (M.R.) (Industrial Tribunal, ... on 12 January, 1965

"4. Neither the said Act nor any of the rules made thereunder provide for the form or the manner in which the consent of the other party is to be given. Normally, any leave granted by a Court or a Tribunal would be in writing. Similarly, in ordinary cases, the consent of the other party would also be given in writing. But the question is whether from this does it follow that the consent of the other side or the leave of the Court must always be in writing. Sub-section (4) of Section 36 does not contain any such requirement, and therefore, it cannot be held that an implied consent is negatived by the Statute. The case of Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay v. Meher and Ors. (supra) is a direct authority for the proposition that the consent of the other side can be implied from the facts and circumstances of the case."
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Hindustan Steel Employees Union And ... on 24 January, 1997

In support of the said contention, reliance had been placed on Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen, , Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi and Ors., Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Employees Union and Ors., reported in (1998-I-LLJ-704) (Cal-DB) & Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation erf India v. Shri Suraj Pal Sharma and Anr., reported in (1999-I- LLJ-1306) (Del).
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - R Pal - Full Document
1