SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1017

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur – Appellant
Versus
Narainiudyog – Respondent


ORDER

Though respondents 1 & 2, namely, M/s. Naraini Udyog, Kota and M/s. Modern Steels, Kota were served, they are not appearing either in person or through counsel. Leave granted. In these appeals, we are concerned only with the legality of the order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 120-121/90 etc. etc. made on July 7, 1993. As regards the aforesaid two concerns, their functional integrity was found by the Commissioner in his report as under :

"The fact of common Head Office at New Delhi, a common branch at Bombay, common Telephone at Kota for residence and factories has also been not denied by Shri Krishan Kumar in his evidence. At the same time assertion that the Head Office though located in the same building but in separate from lacks credibility. The letter-head of the two firms do not give any such indication. The stand of the estt.,that the two are registered separately under the factories Act, the Salas Tax Act, the ESIC Act, are located at a distance of 3 k.m. apart, have separate Central Excise Nos. are registered as separate small-scale industries etc. and, therefore, the two should be treated as separate establishment is devo






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top