Search Results for "Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act"

22 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 22 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Land Acquisition Appeals, Enhances Compensation for Dharuhera Village Acquisition. Land Losers Entitled to Rs. 1,49,14,975/- per Acre Based on Exemplary Sale Deeds Under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Supreme Court adjudicated a batch of twenty-seven appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings in Haryana. Sixteen appeals pertained to acqui...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Challenge to Reference of Minimum Wages Dispute to Industrial Tribunal. Settlement Barring Financial Demands Does Not Preclude Statutory Minimum Wages Claim Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner, Pix Transmissions Limited, an employer, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Employer's Petition in Gratuity Dispute — Holds That Dismissal for Disorderly Behaviour Under Model Standing Orders 22(a) and 22(l) Constitutes 'Disorderly Conduct' Under Section 4(6)(b)(i) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Disentitling Employee to Gratuity.

The petitioner, Jaya Hind Industries Ltd., employed the respondent, Vilas Vithalrao Takale, as a Clerk. Two charge sheets were issued to the responden...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition of Workmen Seeking Absorption in Western Coalfields Limited — Canteen Workers Not Entitled to Direct Absorption as Contractor Was Not a Sham and Contract Labour Was Not Prohibited Under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1947.

The petitioner, a trade union representing workmen of Taroda Opencast Mine of Western Coalfields Limited, challenged an award of the Central Governmen...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Proper Service of Demand Notice. Service of notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be proved by actual delivery or proper postal endorsement; mere dispatch is insufficient.

The petitioner, Ananda Rao Kanthamaneni, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Co...