Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.42 seconds)
Kailasanatha Vidya Nikethan vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 27 February, 2012 cites

State Of Kerala vs P.M.Vijaya Raghavan on 11 November, 2011

The learned Ins.Appl.No.37/2012 & connected cases : 25 : Standing Counsel for the ESI Corporation has invited the attention of this Court to the decision in State of Kerala Vs. Mythri Vidya Bhavan E.M. School [2013 (1) KLT SN 36 (Case No.36)], wherein it was clearly held, "CBSE/ICSE Boards are independent Boards, though constituted by Human Resources Department of Central Government, and cannot be called Central Government as such and so much so, the control over petitioners' schools by th CBSE/ICSE Boards cannot be treated as control by the Central Government.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - S Kuriakose - Full Document

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School ... on 30 October, 2006

23. Regarding "control of the Central Government", the learned counsel for the appellants Sri.Premalal has invited the attention of this Court to the decision in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and others [(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) Ins.Appl.No.37/2012 & connected cases : 27 : 167], wherein it was held:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 31 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Kerala Cbse School Management'S vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 3 July, 2009

The decision in C.B.S.E. School Management's Association (supra) clearly denotes that the said question was clearly mooted before the Bench in that case and the question was seriously deliberated and discussed upon. The said decision was rendered in a batch of cases. One of the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Govind Bharathan had strenuously contended in that case that the CBSE Schools are 'under the control of the Central Government' and, therefore, the Government of Kerala could not be the 'appropriate Government' within the meaning of Section 2(1) read with Section 1(5) of the ESI Act. The said question was considered, the matter was elaborately heard, and discussed at the Bar and a decision was rendered on that question. By merely raising the contention that it cannot Ins.Appl.No.37/2012 & connected cases : 23 : come within the scope of Section 11 Explanation (iii) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the said point was not specifically alleged by one party and the same was not either denied or admitted expressly or impliedly by the other, it cannot be argued that the same is not hit by the principles of res judicata. When such a question was clearly mooted, deliberated, and discussed at the Bar elaborately and a final verdict has been given by the Division Bench of this Court, it cannot be said that the same will not come within the scope of Explanation (iii) to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Even otherwise, the present argument that the Government of Kerala cannot be the 'appropriate Government' within the meaning of Section 2(1) read with Section 1(5) of the ESI Act is hit by the principles of res judicata within the meaning of Explanation (iv) to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Kerala High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next