Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Satnam Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 19 October, 1984
Grindlays Bank (supra) has been followed in Satnam Verma vs.
Union of India [(1984) Supp.
M/S J.K. Synthetics Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 August, 1996
SCC 712] and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs.
Collector of Central Excise [(1996) 6 SCC 92].
Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2004
[See Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 2 SCC
362]. Secondly, from a perusal of the said decision, it does not appear that
any date of publication of the award was mentioned therein so as to
establish that even on fact, the application was made 30 days after the
expiry of publication of the award. Furthermore, the said decision appears
to have been rendered on concession.
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Anil Sood vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ii on 1 December, 2000
This Court in Anil Sood (supra) did not lay down any law to the
contrary. The contention raised on the part of Mr. Jain to the effect that in
fact in that case an application for setting aside an award was made long
after 30 days cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, a fact
situation obtaining in one case cannot be said to be a precedent for another.