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

1958 Supreme(SC) 12

B.P.SINHA, K.SUBBA RAO, SYED JAFAR IMAM
Chintaman Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
I.M.SHROFF, N.C.CHATTERJI, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY

Judgment

K. SUBBA RAO, J. : These appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur and raises the question of construction of some of the provisions of the Factories Act (63 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Before posing the questions raised it would be convenient and useful at the outset to state the facts either found by the High Court or admitted by the parties.

2. Messrs. Brijlal Manilal and Company is a bidi factory situated in Sagar. The 1st Appellant, Chintamanrao, is the Managing Partner of the firm while the 2nd appellant, Kantilal, is its active Manager. The Company manufactures bidis. The process of manufacture, so far as is relevant to the question raised, is carried out in two stages.

3. The first stage : The management enters into a contract with independent contractors, known as Sattedars, for the supply of bidis locally. The documents embodying the terms of the contract entered into by the Sattedars were not produced in the case. But the terms of the contract are not in dispute. The Management supplies tobacco to the Sattedars and in some cases bidi leaves. Some of the Sattedars maintain a small factory where


























































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