Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Engaged In Selling And Repairing Electrical Goods Falls In Definition Of “Factory” And “Manufacturing Process”: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed the interpretation of the definitions of “Factory” and “manufacturing process” under the Employees State Insurance Act and the Factories Act. The case, which saw M/S J.P.LIGHTS INDIA pitted against The Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore, centered around the classification of the appellant’s business activities under these definitions.

The Bench, comprising of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, delivered the verdict on July 27th, 2023. The appellant, a sole proprietorship firm, challenged the dismissal of its appeal against the order of the Employees State Insurance Court.

The Court’s judgment extensively explored the terms “Factory” and “manufacturing process,” citing Sections 2(12), 2(14AA) of the Employees State Insurance Act, and Section 2(k) of the Factories Act. The Bench clarified the conditions that define a premises as a “Factory” and the scope of a “manufacturing process.”

In the crucial observation, the Court confirmed that the appellant-firm, engaged in selling and repairing electrical goods, using electrical energy, fell within the definition of a “Factory” and was involved in a “manufacturing process” under both statutes. The ruling upheld the impugned judgment, emphasizing its alignment with statutory provisions.

The Court concluded by dismissing the appeal as meritless, with each party bearing its own expenses. This judgment not only solidifies the legal understanding of these definitions but also sheds light on the application of statutory provisions to specific business scenarios.

Date of Decision: 27th July, 2023

M/S J.P.LIGHTS INDIA vs THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.I. CORPORATION, BANGALORE

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/27-Jul-2023-SC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News