Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jul-31-2003
Reported in : [2003(4)JCR52(Jhr)]; 145STC323(Jharkh)
..... of this submission will be straining the language of the notification and acting against the normal understanding of the expression 'partner' in law. obviously, a company incorporated under the indian companies act has a distinct entity, different from a firm as defiend in the indian partnership act. the notification contempaltes three types of ownership of the leasehold; ( ..... understood in the sense in which it is understood in partnership law. but, it should be understood as a generic term in which two. persons come together in a joint venture and one of them ..... company, that also would suffice. tata cummins limited is not a partnership. there is also no case that telco is a holding company. what is argued is that the expression partner in the notification should not be ..... us that it must be a case where the assessee himself, here, tata cummins limited, must hold the lease. but in the case of a partnership, it will be sufficient if the lease is held by one of the partners of the firm. if the same is held by a holding ..... to be executed by the dates specified in those documents.4. this joint venture agreement led to the incorporation of the tata cummins limited under the indian companies act, 1956. on 25.3.1995, an agreement was entered into between tata cummins limited and tata engineering & locomotive company limited (telco). as per .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jul-22-2003
Reported in : [2004(1)JCR238(Jhr)]; (2004)IIILLJ377Jhar
..... wages fixed by the state government was made during the period in question appropriate action may be taken against the appellant, under the provisions of the act for payment of the amount of difference of wages in accordance with law.18. however, since the appellant accepts that he is liable to pay the ..... limited is an instrumentality and agency of the central government and the central government is the appropriate government under the industrial disputes act, contract labour (regulation and abolition) act and minimum wages act for coal india limited and its subsidiaries it will be the appropriate government for the hcm also.10. on the ratio of ..... 2000 (annexure 8) observed that the institute being an instrumentality of agency of the central government, the said government is the appropriate government under the minimum wages act for the hcm and their contractor. m/s. green woods. for the coal india limited and its subsidiaries, the central government is the appropriate government.7 ..... and is promoted by the coal india limited (cil), which is a government company registered and incorporated under the indian companies act, 1956.3. the labour enforcement officer (central), ranchi, inspected the premises of the institute and found that all the 43 agricultural labours, ..... order1. the appellant is a partnership firm. it was engaged by the indian institute of coal management ranchi. (for short 'hcm') for butification of its gardens of the campus, including maintenance of flowers, etc. for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Dec-12-2003
Reported in : IV(2004)BC84
..... preferred by these petitioners to quash the order of the revisional court who has directed that the charges are made out under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act and under section 420, ipc to be framed against them. it does not mean that when the magistrate at this stage did not find charge to be framed under sections 120b and 406 ..... in complaint case no. 46/1999 that he owned and managed a business in khairtal in rajasthan. the said business was originally a partnership business and was running, under the name and style of chanduka oil mills in partnership with the petitioner no, 2 sushil kumar gupta, who consequently retired from the business and, thus, o.p. no. 2-complainant became the ..... . no. 2 which he collected towards running capital of the business started at rajasthan which was subsequently closed. the complainant had issued notice under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act by registered post which was refused by the petitioners. however, notices sent under certificate of posting were received. thus, the plea taken by the petitioners that mandatory provisions of section ..... . no. 2 has mentioned seven persons as witnesses without mentioning their full details including their parentage and address. the mandatory provision as required under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act has not been followed. hence it is liable to be quashed. the learned revisional court has not considered these points and relied upon the chance witnesses. on these grounds it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Nov-14-2003
Reported in : [2004(1)JCR138(Jhr)]
..... virtue of an agreement dated 27.8.1960 with the government of bihar and they carried on mining operation in the said quartzite mine in co- partnership under the name and style of bihar bengal minerals and defendant-respondent no. 1 stefan mandal is the managing partner of the said firm and they ..... (xiii).--the hirers shall during the continuance of the hiring keep the said plant in good order and condition, reasonable wear and tear, damages by acts of god and other irresistible force are being excepted. the hirers shall not without consent in writing of the owner make any addition or alteration to ..... be other variations of a contract of hire purchase depending upon the terms agreed between the parties. when rights in third parties have been created by acts of parties or by operation of law, the question, which does not arise here may arise as to what exactly were the rights and obligations of ..... constituted attorney of some of the defendants-respondent and in the absence of a contract to the contrary an agent cannot be made liable for the acts of principal and as such the plaintiff appellant has no cause of action against the defendants-respondent. it is alleged that the plant as supplied by ..... m/s. entracoast private limited is merely an agent and constituted attorney of defendant-respondent nos. 1 to 6 and it cannot be made liable for the acts of the principal and the plaintiff-appellant has no cause of action against defendant-respondent no. 7.6. the case of defendant-respondent no. 7 m .....Tag this Judgment!