Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)
N.J. Lawankar, Divisional Controller, ... vs Anil Devidas Garad, Praveen Suresh ... on 29 June, 2007 cites

M.R. Patil & Anr vs The Member, Industrial Court & Anr on 1 April, 1997

In a case reported M.R. Patil and Anr. v. Member, Industrial Court and Anr. 1997(2) Maharashtra Law Journal 693, Supreme Court has made the following observations: As the above discussion of ours is sufficient to quash the impugned prosecution we need not discuss the other patent infirmities relating to the procedure adopted by the Labour Court in dealing with the complaint and to the rejection of the indefensible contention raised on behalf of Appellant 1 about the maintainability of the prosecution in view of, Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code. These observations were made while deciding appeal which arose out of prosecution of Shri M.R. Patil, the then Managing Director of the M.S.R.T.C. under Section 48 of the Act. In this case accused No. 2 is Managing Director of M.S.R.T.C. and is sought to be prosecuted. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court, it is apparent that the order of issue of notice against accused No. 2 was patently illegal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

M.R. Patil, Vice-Chairman & Managing ... vs Member, Industrial Court, Amravati And ... on 26 April, 1996

He relied upon a decision of this Court in M.R. Patil, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Maharashtra, S.R.T. Corporation and Anr. v. Member, Industrial Court, Amravati and Anr. 1996(2) Bombay Labour Cases 489. In fact it was most inappropriate on the part of the learned Counsel to have cited this decision. This decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court in 1997(2) Maharashtra Law Journal 693. This decision of this Court is, therefore, no more a good law.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1   2 Next