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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14088

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
ANURAG TIBREWALA – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP BY – Respondent


COMMON ORDER

The issue involved in the both these petitions are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2. The respondent has filed two complaints against the petitioner before the Court below, which are pending in CC.Nos.245 and 246 of 2022 and both these proceedings have been put to challenge in these quash petitions.

3. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner has not provided and maintained fire hydrant system with water for firefighting as specified under the Factory Rules. That apart, the petitioner has not properly maintained the belt conveyor. Hence, the complaint has been filed for contravention of Section 38 (3) of the Factories Act read with Rule 61(11)(e)(f) of the Factories Rules & Section 21(2) of the Factories Act read with Rule 53, Annexure 11 , Part A, Category 3(1) of the Factories Rule.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

5. It is seen from records that the factory in question is involved in manufacturing products after obtaining environmental clearance from the Pollution Control Board. However, the respondent has proceeded

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