Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ251Mad
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioners are the workmen employed in Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd., Sahupuram, Tirunelveli District. The company is registered under she Companies Act and has its bead office at Dhrangadhra in Gujarat State but has got its caustic soda unit at Sahupuram. The workmen were paid 4% minimum bonus as provided under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. They contended that they were entitled to additional bonus for the year 1967-68. This claim of the petitioner-workmen was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, by the Government in G.O.R. No, 428/Labour dated 2nd March, 1970. The Tribunal by its award dated 31st May, 1974, in Industrial Dispute No. 20 of 1970 held that the petitioners were not entitled to any additional bonus. It is to quash this award of the Industrial Tribunal this writ petition has been filed.2. The controversy between the parties lies within a very narrow compass. Section 3 of the Payment of Bonus Act. 1965. along with the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1975Mad3
1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff who is the respondent in tbis appeal was the Secretary of the Board of Trustees in charge of the Thyagaraya Chetti Educational Institution and of which Board the defendant-appellant was the President. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for reliefs of injunction etc. and, incidentally, filed a petition, I. A. No. 6291 of 1973, under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Civil P. C. for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from calling for a meeting of the Board of the Trustees in the alleged exercise of his right as President of the Board of Trustees. The contention of the plaintiff was that he, in his capacity as secretary of the Board of Trustees, was the person solely competent to call for a meeting of the Board of Trustees and no one else could usurp his powers. The learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, who heard the petition did not accept the case of the plaintiff and dismissed I. A. 6291 of 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1975Mad164
ORDERNatarajan, J. 1. The plaintiff in suit No. 3118 of 1969 on the file of the Third Judge. Court of Small Causes. Madras, who was the applicant in N. T. A. No. 82 of 1971 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff, viz., Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple by Chairman. Board of trustees, filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 324 being the arrears of rent due from the respondent for the period March 1960 to December. 1968 on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/-. The respondent opposed the suit claim and contended that the claim was barred by limitation and secondly that two payments of Rs. 30/- made by him had not been given credit to. In support of his claim the plaintiff placed reliance on a letter Ex. P-1 executed by the respondent on 2-11-1968. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Exhibit P-1 can keep alive the rent claimed by the plaintiff only for a period of three years prior to the date of its execution and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ397
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Three sales evidenced by Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were attacked by the Official Receiver, Tirunelveli, on the ground that the vendor under those deeds of sale was later adjudicated insolvent within two months from the date of such transactions and that two of the vendees therein were his own creditors and that he fraudulently preferred those two creditors and in any event all the sales are vitiated because they were not for valuable consideration and they were made with the intention to enable the insolvent to defeat and delay his creditors. During the pendency of these proceedings, the insolvent died and his legal representatives are before me as respondents. The Official Receiver's case is that the alienees did not examine themselves to prove that the sales were supported by consideration and that they were not for the purpose of fradulently preferring some of the creditors or not for the purpose of defeating or delaying the other creditors. The lower Court, ...
Tag this Judgment!