Skip to main content

24 years on, HC finds AC room is not cold storage

It took the judiciary 24 years to declare that an air conditioner makes a room cool and does not turn it into a cold storage.

This happened in a case pertaining to a city-based trading firm, Gokaldas Trading Co, which is a commission agent of chocolates, tomato ketchup and other food items. This firm had 10 employees and an AC was installed in the manager's room.

Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) declared it a factory saying it had more than 10 employees and was carrying out manufacturing with the aid of power. It showed an AC as the instrument used in the manufacturing activity.

ESIC concluded that according to Section 2K(vi) of the Factories Act, by employing more than 10 persons and preserving and storing food articles in a cold storage, which is a manufacturing activity, the firm fell in the category of a factory. With this, ESIC sent a notice to the firm, asking it to pay Rs 68,278 as tax from 1983 and 1988.

After due communication with ESIC, the firm filed an application before an ESI court in 1991. This court dismissed the plea requesting that ESI Act should not be made applicable to it merely on the ground that an AC was installed in the manager's room. The firm moved the Gujarat high court in 1994 and argued that the AC was not meant to preserve food items, which were kept in a different room. The AC was used during office hours.

ESIC argued the manager was receiving a salary of just Rs 1,100 and no company would bother to provide AC facility to an employee with such a meager salary. It insisted that the AC was used to keep articles in cold storage.

After hearing the case, the HC said, "This court is of the opinion that the court below (ESI court) committed an error while giving the finding that chocolates, bournvita etc. are preserved in the AC room and the manager's AC chamber is a cold storage."

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/24-years-on-HC-finds-AC-room-is-not-cold-storage/articleshow/49575100.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more