Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.76 seconds)
H.K. Makwana vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 8 April, 1994 cites

The Corporation Of The City Ofnagpur vs Its Employees on 10 March, 1960

"75. The Court proceeded in the Corporation of Nagpur case (AIR 1960 SC 675) to pose for itself the import of the words 'analogous to the carrying out of a trade or business' and took the view that the emphasis was more on the nature of the organised activity implicit in trade or business that to equate the other activities with trade or business". Obviously, non-trade operations were in many cases 'industry. Relying on the Fabricated Engine Drivers, 1913 (160 CLR 245 (Aus) Subba Rao, J. observed (at pp. 682 of AIR) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 98 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992

Before considering this contention it would be appropriate to quote observations from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C. I. T. v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., 1992 (4) SCC 363, wherein the Court has held that the judgment of the Supreme Court must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court and that is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment. The relevant observations are as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1062 - Y Dayal - Full Document

H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji ... vs Union Of India on 15 December, 1970

Keeping this aforesaid principle in mind, we would consider the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjit Roy (AIR 1983 SC 328). In that case, that Court considered whether the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is applicable to the workmen employed in the famine relief works. For deciding the said question, the Court mainly relied upon Art. 23 of the Constitution of India and held that where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wages, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the meaning of the words 'forced labour' and attracts the condemnation of Art. 23. Every person who provides labour or service to another is entitled at least to the minimum wages and if anything less than the minimum wage is paid to him he can complain of violation of his fundamental right under Art. 23. No doubt, in that case, the Court has observed that the relief work undertaken by the State by way of famine relief is useful to the society and productive in terms of creation of some asset or wealth and when the State exacts labour or service from the affected persons for carrying out such work, for example a bridge or a road which has utility for the society and which is going to augment the wealth of the State, there can be no justification for the State not to pay the minimum wages to the affected persons. As stated earlier, in the aforesaid case, the Court has not at all considered the provisions of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act or the definition of the word 'industry. Therefore, in our view, the aforesaid decision would not have any bearing in deciding the question as to whether the relief work undertaken by the State Government would be 'industry' or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 192 - Cited by 423 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next