Judgments - APPLICATION U/s 378
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD Vs. M/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD. & ANR.
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD Vs. M/S. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS.
COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,GOA Vs. M/S COSME FARMA LABORATORIES LTD.
SECY., MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT.& R.E.S. Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI
ONGC PETRO ADDITIONS LTD. Vs. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. KOREA
RISHIROOP RUBBER (INTERNATIONAL ) LTD. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS
BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE & ORS. Vs. THE ADMINISTRATOR & DIVNL.COMMR.& ORS.
P.R.YELUMALAI Vs. N.M.RAVI
However, we find that after the execution Court had dismissed the execution proceeding on the ground of delay in depositing the amount, the same question was dealt with by the original side of the Trial Court as well in the application for extension of time. Since both the Courts have given concurrent findings that the case for extension of time was not made out, we Full Judgment
UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. THE SEC.MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE UNION & ORS
They have also been working for similar number of hours, however, the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and the non-permanent workmen is alarming and the same has to be construed as being an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act r/w Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act, which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Full Judgment
ASHA VERMAN & ORS. Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.
On applying the principles as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the salary must be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects of income, which comes to Rs.6,900/- per month, i.e. Rs.82,800/- per annum. Deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier taking into consideration the age of Full Judgment
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
VED MITTER GILL Vs. U.T. ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS
A. RAGHU, SON OF RAJAIAH Vs. GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.
The judgments cited pertain to the particular rule of seniority, which was subject matter of consideration. None of the seniority rules which were taken into consideration is akin to rule 15 which is to be applied for determining the inter se seniority of Sub- Inspectors of Police, in the present case. Full Judgment