Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary Introduction In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses. The Government o
This case is of "Newzealand" related to "Separate legal entity" has an indispensable role in the Indian company's act to understand the concept of the distinct personality of the Company.
Facts of the Case
'L' formed the respondent company to carry on the business of aerial top-dressing.
The nominal capital of the company was 3,000 pounds. 'L' was allotted 2,999 shares and he was appointed governing director of the respondent company and under Article 33 of the articles of the association was employed as chief pilot of the company. 'L' exercised full and unrestricted control of the company affairs. A different form of insurance cover for the benefit of the respondent company and certain personal accident policies were taken out in favor of 'L', who was a duly qualified pilot. L was killed while piloting the aircraft during aerial top dressing.
The appellant claimed compensation under "the New Zealand Workers Compensation Act, 1922".
Appellant contention
As mentioned in section 3(1) of the Companies Act, 1922: if personal injury by accident arises in the course of any employment, the company is liable to compensate.
He was paid wages for his employment, the record has been kept in the company's wage book.
Respondent contention
The respondent company denied that the deceased was a 'worker' within the meaning of "the Workers Compensation Act, 1922".
The denial was based on the fact that the deceased was, at the time of the accident, the controlling shareholder and government director of the respondent company.
Issue
Q. 1. Whether at the time of the accident, despite the fact of the governing director, the deceased was also employed by the respondent company as a worker within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act, 1922 and it's amendment?
Ratio Decidendi
No director shall be disqualified by his office from holding any office or place of profit under the company.
"Salomon v Salomon Co. Ltd,1897":
one person may function in dual capacities.
"Indian Revenue comes. V Sansom , 1921" :
the company was a properly constituted legal entity, it had the power to make plans for such persons and on such terms as it should think fit.
" Fowler v Commercial Timber Co. Ltd, 1930" :
the plaintiff can hold two positions; first, as a managing director, who claimed damages for breach of the contract of employment, and 2nd as a director and shareholder of the company who thinks that in its own interest, the company ought to stop business.
In the present case, thereis no reason to doubt that a valid contractual relationship could be created between the respondent company and the deceased.
A man acting in one capacity can make a contract with himself in another capacity.
The respondent company and the deceased were the Separate entity.
Any profit earned would belong to the respondent company and not to the deceased.
Judgment
Appealallowed.
The deceased was a worker under the Workers Compensation Act.
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary Introduction This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway. For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme, and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme, Earlier the sharehol
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Comments
Post a Comment