Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pepsu court of wards act 2008 bk Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.099 seconds)

Jan 07 2004 (HC)

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Jan-07-2004

Reported in : [2006]144STC409(Ker)

..... industries within the state of kerala, they would certainly be entitled to plead the rule of estoppels in their favour when the state of kerala purports to act differently. several decisions of this court were cited in support of the stand of the appellants that in similar circumstances the plea of estoppels can be and has been applied and the leading ..... the said notification to the four categories mentioned in paragraph 21 supra. these exceptions, as already noted, are based on the principle of promissory estoppels as considered by the supreme court in mahaveer oil industries' case [1999] 115 stc 29. the circumstances under which a unit can be considered to have taken effective steps were incorporated in notifications s.r. ..... exemption are to be taken into account for interpreting the words used in the notification. in bajaj tempo ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax : [1992]196itr188(sc) the supreme court held that provision granting incentive for promoting economic growth and development in taxing statutes should be liberally construed and restrictions placed on it by way of exception should be construed ..... should be strictly construed. (state level committee v. morgardshammar india ltd. : air1996sc524 and novopan india ltd v. collector of central excise and customs : 1994(73)elt769(sc) ). the supreme court in pappu sweets and biscuits v. commissioner of trade tax, u.p., lucknow [1998] 111 stc 425 held that object of the relevant exemption notification and the intention of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2004 (HC)

Sri Sarjug @ Sarjoo Paswan Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-03-2004

Reported in : 2005(3)CHN213,2005(2)ESC1190

..... a period of 37 days).24. the learned counsel on the question of maintainability relied on another decision of this court passed in three writ petition heard analogously being w.p. no. 8842(w) of 2008, bishnu lohar v. eastern coalfields ltd., w.p. no. 8843 (w) of 2003, ram sankar upadhyay v ..... said that the hon'ble division bench in this judgment observed that in terms of the provisions of section 11-a of the industrial disputes act, 1947 even if disciplinary proceedings become vitiated by reason of non-observance of the principles of natural justice or for any other reason, the ..... and mainly relying on past records of the petitioner.(vii) the appellate authority also did not consider his appeal against the order of dismissal and acted in violation of the principles of natural justice.lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alternative remedy is not a bar in moving ..... the writ petition. in paragraph 4 of the opposition it has been stated that the petitioner is a workman and is governed by industrial disputes act and the writ petition is not maintainable since the alternative forum or remedy lies in the industrial proceeding. in this affidavit-in-opposition in ..... it is to be noted that the term 'statutory bar' and the term 'without jurisdiction' are two different connotations. as such, industrial disputes act nowhere says that no writ petition will maintainable in such a circumstance, therefore, let me see whether the entertainment of the writ petition is within the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //