ANANTRAI MOHANLAL MEHTA Vs. HARILAL KALYANJI TAJAWALA
LAWS(GJH)-1983-2-5
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on
February 18,1983
ANANTRAI MOHANLAL MEHTA
Appellant
VERSUS
HARILAL KALYANJI TAJAWALA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
R. R. CHARI V. STATE OF U. P. [REFERRED]BAJYA V. GOPIKABAI [REFERRED]
STATE OF PUNJAB V. SARWAN SINGH [REFERRED]
CENTRAL TALKIES LIMITED VS. DWARKA PRASAD [REFERRED]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY PURAN SINGH KEWAL KRISHAN KRISHAN LAL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA SONI NARANDAS NAGJIBHAI PUKHRAJ M S VENKITANARAYANA IYER VS. NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY:THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:D R KOHLI:THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS [REFERRED]
RAM SARUP DALIP SINGH MEHAR SINGH DAYAL SINGH VS. MUNSHI:SUNDER SINGH:AJAIB SINGH:SURJAN SINGH [REFERRED]
R P KAPUR VS. S PRATAP SINGH KAIROA [REFERRED]
JAMUNA SINGLI VS. BHADAI SHAH [REFERRED]
NAROTTAMDAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA GORAVARI SUGAR MILLS VS. MADHAVRAO DAMODAR PATIL ANOTHER :S B KAMBLE [REFERRED]
NITYANANDA M JOSHI VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
MOWU VS. SUPERINTENDENT SPECIAL JAIL NOWGONG ASSAM [REFERRED]
GOVIND MEHTA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
NIRMALJIT SINGH HOON VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
MIRZA IQBAL HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
S.B.MAJMUDAR -
(1.)These two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raise a short question about applicability of period of limitation as prescribed by sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to complaints filed under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.)The petitions challenge the decisions arrived at by the second labour court Rajkot in criminal complaints Nos. 1 and 3 of 1978 as well as the revisional decisions arrived at by the Industrial court Gujarat in exercise of its powers under sec. 88 of the Act whereby the authorities below have taken the view that these complaints are barred by limitation. The complainant who is the petitioner in both-these petitions contends to the contrary.
(3.)In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner in both these petitions it will be necessary to have a look at a few relevant facts culminating into the present proceedings. I. Factual bach-drop.
(2.)The petitions challenge the decisions arrived at by the second labour court Rajkot in criminal complaints Nos. 1 and 3 of 1978 as well as the revisional decisions arrived at by the Industrial court Gujarat in exercise of its powers under sec. 88 of the Act whereby the authorities below have taken the view that these complaints are barred by limitation. The complainant who is the petitioner in both-these petitions contends to the contrary.
(3.)In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner in both these petitions it will be necessary to have a look at a few relevant facts culminating into the present proceedings. I. Factual bach-drop.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.