Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 45 Wpl/190/2013 ... on 31 July, 2018
3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) contends
that the narrative projected by the prosecution is factually misconceived and
suppresses the true nature of the relationship between the parties. Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) contends that the complainant, along
with Azad Singh, was not a passive guarantor but was actively associated with
the petitioner in the functioning of the proprietorship concern Real Carpet."
He refers to the snippet from the web portal of Real Carpet to contend that the
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 07-03-2026 00:49:08 :::
CRM-M-68824-2025 (O&M) -4-
respondent-complainant and Azad Singh are depicted as members of the core
team. He further refers to certain photographs taken during trade exhibitions
and business events, wherein the respondent-complainant is seen
accompanying the petitioner and participating in business-related activities
which reflect active participation of the respondent-complainant in the entire
process and he being aware of the entire transactions. It is further submitted
that disputes had already arisen inter se the parties in relation to the business.
The workers of the establishment had reportedly instituted proceedings for
recovery of wages before the competent authority under the Payment of
Wages Act. Additionally, it is pointed out that a complaint titled Sunil v. Azad
Singh and others had also been filed under Section 173 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking registration of a case concerning
alleged forgery of purchase orders, thereby indicating pre-existing discord and
mutual allegations.
1