Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J
MECON Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition background for licences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's clarification requests. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. licensing requirements under the act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. impact of communications on licensing. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. respondents' denial of petitioner's claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. applicability of the act on contractors. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. petitioner's arguments on contracting terms. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. court's observations on responsibilities. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. interpretation of contractor responsibilities. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 10. clarifications and legal standing. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. court's summary of findings. (Para 45) |
| 12. decision on legality of communications. (Para 46) |
| 13. final decision and order. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The writ petition has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent nos. 3 and 4 authorities to revoke and withdraw the communication dated 10th February, 2022 and 16th March, 2022 and further directions to issue licence to such sub-contractors engaged by the petitioner, who employ or will employ 20 or more
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
