9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (4) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, to renew the factory's license for the year 1957 by making an appropriate application within 60 days of the expiry of the licence for the previous year ending on December 31, 1956, and drew his attention to Rule 7 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950. At the end of that letter he added the following note: Note: There have been a lot of mistakes found in last years in the application for renewal and in the notice of occupation which created a lot of difficulties in renewing the licence by this office. Please be careful while filling up these informations....................... On receipt of this letter an application for the renewal of the licence was sent to the Chief Inspector of Factories. This application was signed by the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave factories at various places and our Digha Branch Factory is in charge of Mr. J. D. Mackenzie who is the person having ultimate control of the affairs of the factory. Mr. Mackenzie is therefore in our submission, the occupier within the meaning thereof as defined by Section 2(n) He called upon the Chief Inspector, there fore, to renew the licence. The Chief Inspector, in his reply dated December 20, 1956, stuck to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the law placed by him in his earlier communication and again called upon the factory to submit an appropriate application for renewal of the licence of the factory. Treating this as an order of the Chief Inspector of Factories the petitioners moved the High Court at Patna for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of Factories but it does not appear there from that any document was executed by the company or any resolution was passed by it vesting the ultimate control in the petitioner No. 1. Two specific queries were put by the Chief Inspector in his letter dated November 20, 1956. One was whether any managing agents had been appointed for the factory and the other was whether Mackenzie was one of the directors. No reply was given to either of these queries by Chatterjee in his letter dated November 22,1956, which purported to be a reply to the Chief Inspector's letter of Nov. 20, 1956. In the circumstances, therefore, the Chief Inspector of Factories was perfectly right in refusing to act on the application signed by Mackenzie and in requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
