Search Results for "Industrial Court discretion"

1639 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1639 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Quashes Reinstatement Order in Industrial Dispute Due to Tribunal's Excessive Interference. Tribunal Erred by Applying Criminal Standard of Proof and Revisiting Evidence De Novo Under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Contrary to Limited Scope of Judicial Review.

The dispute arose from the dismissal of a workman, R.C. Srivastava, by Standard Chartered Bank following a domestic enquiry into allegations of miscon...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses PILs Challenging Ulhasnagar Development Plan, Upholds Statutory Process. Court holds that objections to draft development plan must be raised before the planning authority under MRTP Act, and belated challenges after final notification are not maintainable.

The judgment concerns two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the development plan for Ulhasnagar city. ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Delivers Judgment in Writ Petition Challenging Revocation of Slaughter Licenses by Municipal Corporation; Questions of Arbitrariness and Natural Justice Violation Examined Under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

The Bombay Suburban Khatik Association, an association of butchers and mutton vendors, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cha...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds State Government's Notification Fixing Minimum Wages for Hotels and Eating Houses Under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Validity of Alternative Procedure Under Section 5(1) Upheld as Not Arbitrary.

The case arose from a challenge by hotel owners to the notification issued by the Government of Mysore under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minim...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Ruling That Time Limit Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act is Directory. The provision requiring District Magistrate to pass possession order within 30 days (extendable to 60 days) is directory, as non-compliance does not invalidate proceedings or prejudice the borrower.

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Kerala High Court which held that the time limit under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of ...