Senior Advocates in India for Corporate

The judgment in that case indicates that without committing itself to the acceptance of the formula in its entirety, this Court in general accepted as sound the view that since labour and capital both contribute to the earnings of the industrial concern, it is fair that labour should derive some benefit if there is a surplus after meeting the four prior or necessary charges specified in the formula. 4 pies in a rupee as claimed by the appellant on its net profits.

The contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent that a court takes cognizance of an offence and not of an offender holds good when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under Section 190 CrPC. A Special Judge while trying an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot summon another person and proceed against him in the purported exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC if no sanction has been granted by the appropriate authority for prosecution of such a person as the existence of a sanction is sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence qua that person.

Yogendra Singh and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. (See Godde Venkateswara Rao v. According to this decision, where wages fall short of the living (1) [1954] INSC 110; [1955] S. State of Bihar were also made in that context. It is relevant to add that child custody lawyer in Chandigarh dealing with the concept of bonus this Court ruled that bonus is neither a gratuitous payment made by the employer to his workmen nor can it be regarded as a deferred wage.

In regard to the claim for depreciation the tribunal has held that it was normal depreciation calculated according to the straight line method which should be allowed. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur (1). 10 lakhs provided by the appellant as annual contribution to the reserve for gratuity, as also the expenditure on the cost of dismantling buildings, prospecting expenses, etc. It has allowed 6% interest on the entire paid-up capital of Rs.

This Court had occasion to consider the said formula in Muir Mills Co. The Prevention of Corruption Act is a special statute and as the preamble shows, this Act has been enacted to consolidate and amend the divorce law firm in Chandigarh relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. 59 lakhs, and 4% interest on the working capital. 991 120 944 standard and the industry makes profit part of which is due to the contribution of labour, a claim for bonus can be legitimately made.

TISCO therefore claims entitlement to refund on the excess royalty paid by it for this period. 303/2004 filed by TISCO against the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2002 passed by the Jharkhand High Court. The observations made by this Court in Raghubans Dubey v. It has, however, rejected the appellant’s case that the income from investments in shares and securities received by it should be excluded for the purpose of bonus; while it has allowed the sum of Rs.

It has held that the appellant had not inflated the capital invested by the merging companies while taking them over in 1936. On the contentions raised by the parties before it the tribunal framed ten issues for determination and it has made its findings on them in the light of the evidence adduced before it. [1] The grievance in this appeal is that though the application Quashing of FIR or Criminal Complaint Lawyer in Chandigarh the Top Law Firm in Chandigarh High Court laid down by this court in State of Orissa v. However, neither the propriety nor the order of priority as between the four prior charges and their relative importance nor their content was examined by this Court in that case; and though the formula has subsequently been generally accepted by this Court in several reported decisions (Baroda Borough Municipality v.

On the question of income-tax, the tribunal has allowed the same at 83. In the set of appeals pertaining to TISCO, the first appeal is Civil Appeal No. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth. It did not accept the respondents’ case that the bonus paid by the appellant to its officers should be reduced or wholly disallowed for the purpose of calculations under the formula; and, on the question as to whether overtime payment should be included in the payment of bonus, it has upheld the respondents’ contention and allowed the inclusion of the said payment.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. ) Therefore, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act will have an overriding effect over the general provisions contained in Section 190 or 319 CrPC. [2] (hereafter SAIL) has been accepted by the High Court, namely, that royalty is chargeable [in accordance with Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the MMDR Act)] on the quantity of coal extracted at the pit-head, yet the refund of excess royalty paid by TISCO for the period from 10th August, 1998 (the date of the decision in SAIL) till June 2002 [about Rs.

Here, the principle expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant would apply which means that if a special provision has been made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provisions.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s