Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

In Re Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, AIR 1936

In Re Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union, AIR 1936 || Case Summary 

Facts

  1. An application for the registration of the "Inland Steam Navigation Worker’s Union", formed by the employees of all Inland Steamer Services, was rejected by the Registrar on the ground of a declaration made by the General Sec. of the Inland Steam Navigation Worker's Union that this Union was formerly known as RSN and LGN and Ry. Workers' Union which have been declared unlawful under S. 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, and had been banned. 
  2. Therefore the appellant came here under S.11 of the Trade Union Act.

Issue 

  1. Whether the Registrar of the Trade Union was right to pass a decision after relying on the letter presented before the Bengal Government.

Ratio Decidendi 

  1. The Registrar must have to notify and provide an opportunity to defend to the appellant before rejecting the application on the basis of the letter. 
  2. Section 8 of the Trade Union Act empowers the Registrar to refuse a Union from registration only on the ground that the said Union has not complied with the requirements as provided by the Act.
  3. The Registrar is not empowered to go into the question of whether the said organization is an unlawful association because the Registrar is limited to see whether the requirements of the Act have been complied with or not. The legality of the Union can only be decided by a Court based on the evidence placed.
  4. The duties of the Registrar before registering a Union under this Act are:-
    1. To examine the application presented for registration.
    2. To look into the objects for which the Union was formed.
    3. To examine whether the said objects are intra vires or ultra vires of the act.

Decision 

  1. The appeal was allowed.
  2. The Court observed that the matter should be sent back to the Registrar to consider the question of whether the requirements in regard to the registration have been complied with or not. 

Summary

On an application for the registration of the Union of employees of all Inland Steamer Services of Bengal known as "Inland Steam Navigation Workers' Union", the Registrar refused to register on the ground of a declaration made by the General Sec. of the Inland Steam Navigation Worker's Union that this Union was formerly known as RSN and LGN and Ry. Workers' Union which have been declared unlawful under S. 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, and had been banned. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal held that the Registrar is not empowered to check the legality of a Union. S.8 of the Trade Union Act empowers the Registrar to refuse a Union from registration only on the ground that the said Union has not complied with the requirements as provided by the Act.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
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
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
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
Read more