Only because the plaintiff-respondents are ready and willing to perform their part of contract and even assuming that the defendant was not entirely vigilant in protecting his rights in the proceedings before the competent authority under the 1976 Act, the same by itself would not mean that a decree for specific performance of contract would automatically be granted. asks the learned Attorney-General. each one of the respondents.

Undoubtedly such a jurisdiction cannot be refused to be exercised on whims and caprice; but when with passage of time, the contract becomes frustrated or in some cases increase in the price of land takes place, the same being relevant factors can be taken into consideration for the said purpose. In Madan Mohan Singh v. It is urged that the establishment of any railway administration is mentioned as sr. Rajni Kant this Court examined a case as a court of fifth instance.

59 of the Factories Act. 3 of the said schedule shows that the provisions of the Act are inapplicable to the said establishments. II and the entry against it in col. 141 The Authority then considered the respondent's argument that even if he was not a worker under the Factories Act he was neverthless entitled to claim the benefit of s. The conclusion of the Authority has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that s. 42 which prohibits the owner of a transport vehicle from using it except in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority.

The decided cases were based upon one or other of the following principles: (i) the Receiving Railway is the agent of the Forwarding Railway; This argument is not a new one but one raised before and the Courts offered different solutions based on the peculiar facts of each case. 59 of the said Act by virtue of s. While considering the question as to whether the discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised or not, the orders of a competent authority must also be taken into consideration.

While refusing to exercise their jurisdiction, the courts are not precluded from taking into consideration the subsequent events. The appellant was accordingly directed to file a statement showing the overtime wages to which the several respondents were entitled and orders were passed on each one of the applications directing the appellant to pay the respective amounts to. 11 shall not apply to the establishments, employees and other persons mentioned against them in the second column of the said schedule.

70 be said to apply to it? The second child was born when she was 6 years of age; the third child was born at the age of 8 years; the fourth child was born at the age of 10 years; and she gave birth to the fifth child when she was 12 years of age. Indeed as we have already observed, no provision of the Act except s. 70 on which it is based cannot be invoked by the respondents. That is why the Authority ordered that the respondents would be entitled for the period 19-5- 1953 to 30-9-1954 to overtime wages at double the ordinary rate for the Sundays on which they worked when they were not given a a holiday on one of the three days immediately preceding or after the said Sunday.

Furthermore, Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act confers a discretionary jurisdiction upon the courts. The Authority accepted this contention and held that, even if the respondent was not a worker under the Factories Act, s. He produced on record application (Exhibit PZ) moved by the police officer and report (Exhibit PZ/1) made by Pavan Kumar, Clerk working in the Regional Transport Office. 70 of the Act entitled him to claim overtime wages under s. The proviso to this section authorises the State Government to add to, omit or alter any of the entries in the said schedule in the manner indicated( by it.

This Court examined the documents and contents thereof and reached the conclusion that if the contents of the said documents are examined making mere arithmetical exercise it would lead not only to improbabilities and impossibilities but also to absurdity. The sale held by the receiver under such conditions would no doubt be governed by the provisions of 34were not mixed up: the difference between the two sections has been pointed out in several previous decisions of this Court, and though we consider it unnecessary to reiterate that difference, we must state that the difference should have been kept in mind and the two charges should not have been rolled up into one as was done in the present case.

4 mentions and applies only to establishments and it has no application to factories; and we are dealing with employees in a factory. The statutory authorities and the High Court had determined the issues taking into consideration a large number of documents including electoral rolls and school leaving certificates and held that such documents were admissible in evidence. This Court examined the probative value of the contents of the said documents and came to the conclusion that Smt Shakuntala, second wife of the father of the contesting parties therein had given birth to the first child two years prior to her own birth.

Section 4 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act its provisions mentioned 147 in the third column of sch. That Chapter begins with s. No documents have been produced to show the ownership of Jaibir. In support of this argument reliance is placed on s. 70 applies to factories and so it would not be legitimate to base any argument on the assumption that s. -It is against these orders that the appellant has filed the present group of appeals by special leave.

If the establishment in question is exempted from the application of all the provisions of the Act, how can s. 1(d) it is these powers which he seeks to exercise when selling the judgment-debtor's property in execution of the decree. 4 is applicable to the present case. In order to prove his ownership, the prosecution had produced Gulab Singh (PW-18), Registration Clerk with Regional Transport Office.