Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Section 3 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890
Maheshwari Fish Seed Farm vs T. Nadu Electricity Board And Anr on 16 April, 2004
• The product's character does not change while it is handled in
the petitioner's building. Mere storage of a product cannot be
considered part of the 'manufacturing process'.
• Taxation statutes are to be interpreted widely so as to achieve
its objective. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in
WP(C) NO.2019/2015 9
2025:KER:19624
Maheshwari Fish Seed Farm v. T.N. Electricity Board and
another [(2004) 4 SCC 705]
• At the time of hearing, the petitioner had not produced any
relevant documents to support the contention that the disputed
building falls under the purview of the Factories Act.
• After hearing and enquiry, it was clearly found that no
manufacturing process was taking place in the building, which
is used to store and supply petroleum products.
• No licence was obtained by the petitioner. Only 3 to 5
labourers were working as per the muster roll, and henceforth,
the said building will not come under the ambit of the Factories
Act.
Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975
M/S. The Himalaya Drug Company vs The State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2020
[1969 KHC 4706];
Himalaya Drug Company v. State of Kerala (2020 (3) KLT
Section 41A in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala vs Joseph D' Cunha on 17 January, 2013
Reliance was placed
on the dictum laid down in State of Kerala and others v.
Joseph D Cunha [2013 KHC 3673] and Dream World Water
Park, Trichur v. Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk and
others [2013 (4) KHC 471]
Haneef Mohd. @ Mohd. Kanish vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors on 16 January, 2018
• Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Mohamed
Haneef v. & Co. and others v. Regional Director,
Employees State Insurance Corporation.