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

1984 Supreme(Guj) 260

N.H.BHATT, R.A.MEHTA
GUJCHEM DISTILLERS INDIA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.R.ACHARYA, K.S.NANAVATI, S.R.SHAH

N. H. BHATT, R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition by one company challenging the legality validity and constitutionality of the enquiry conducted by the respondent the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Gujarat State under sec. 75 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevitys sake. The question arose because of the refusal of the respondent to accord to the petitioner-company the infancy benefit under sec. 16 (1) (b) of the said Act.

( 2 ) IN order to understand the controversy a few facts are required to be closely noted. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. Initially it bore the name Sardesai Brothers Limited which was ultimately changed to the present name Gujchem Distillers India Ltd. The petitioner has its original factory at Billimora in Valsad District and that factory we were told at the Bar had been started somewhere in the year 1939. The said company has been manufacturing Rectified Spirit at Billimora and many other products are also there manufactured by them. In the year 1975 the company decided to establish a new factory at the Industrial











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