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

1972 Supreme(SC) 509

H.R.KHANNA, K.K.MATHEW
P. D. Jambekar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent


Judgment

MATHEW, J. :- This is an appeal by Special Leave from the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 244 of 1969. By the judgment the High Court set aside the order of the Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, dismissing the complaint filed by the Inspector of Factories against the Manager of Arun Mills Ltd., the appellant here, on the ground that the prosecution was barred by time.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. One Chandrakant Jethalal was a worker in the factory in question of which the appellant was the Manager. On February 27, 1968, the worker while cleaning the clip stentering machine with a rag near the delivery side slipped when the machine was in motion, and while trying to save himself, his right hand was trapped into the bevel gears of the stentering machine. The bevel gears were at a height of three feet from the ground floor and are dangerous parts of the stentering machine and were not safe by position and construction. As a result of the injury his fingers had to be amputated. In respect of this accident, the Inspector of factories received a report from the concerned authority on February 28, 1968. T





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no clear statements or references to judicial reversal or disapproval of these decisions within the provided excerpts. Therefore, based on the information available, no cases are identified as bad law.

[Followed / Affirmed]

None explicitly indicated. The list does not contain language suggesting these cases have been explicitly followed or affirmed in subsequent rulings.

[Distinguished / Clarified]

The references to multiple decisions, such as in REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES VS FAIR GROWTH AGENCIES LIMITED - 2006 0 Supreme(Kar) 335 and State of Rajasthan VS Mohan Lal Solanki - 1996 0 Supreme(Raj) 306, suggest that these cases are part of a broader judicial discussion. However, there is no explicit mention of these cases being distinguished or clarified in later rulings within the provided text.

[Criticized / Questioned]

The phrase in J. J. Irani VS State of Jharkhand - Crimes (2014), “We fail to understand this submission coming from the State,” indicates some level of disagreement or questioning of the State's argument in that case. However, this does not amount to a critique of the case's validity or treatment as bad law; it is more about the court's reasoning in that particular instance.

[Reversed / Overruled / Abrogated]

No explicit language or context provided indicates that any of these cases have been reversed or overruled.

[Other observations]

Several cases (e.g., Niteen Pradhan VS State Of Karnataka - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 250, J. J. IRANI VS STATE OF JHARKHAND - 2014 5 Supreme 705) reference the same case law (P.D. Jambekar v. ... State of Gujarat, (1973) 3 SCC 524), but there is no indication that this case has been overruled or discredited.

R. Aghoramurthy, Registrar Of Companies, Bombay VS Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Company LTD. - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 140: The excerpt discusses reliance on a decision but does not specify whether that decision has been overruled or questioned in later rulings.

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES IN KARNATAKA, BANGALORE VS FAIRGROWTH AGENCIES LIMITED, BANGALORE - 2006 0 Supreme(Kar) 339: Mentions a case and a second decision but does not clarify whether these decisions have been overruled or upheld.

H. M. P. Singh, Ex-Executive Director (Works), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City VS State of Jharkhand - 2015 0 Supreme(Jhk) 940: References multiple cases, including Jambekar and others, but treatment details (such as whether they have been overruled or criticized) are not provided.

Overall, the treatment of these cases remains ambiguous due to lack of explicit references to appellate history or subsequent judicial treatment.

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