Chennai Court September 1985 Judgments
G. Ramachandran and anr. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Public Works Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ413Mad
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of Writ App. Nos. 437 and 408 of 1979 which arise out of W.P. 4819 and 4820 of 1978. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common order. 2. The petitioner in W.P. 4819 of 1978 is one P. Raju who was initially appointed as a Supervisor on 17th December, 1965. He was a diploma holder. The petitioner in W.P. 4820 of 1978 is one G. Ramachandran who was also working as a supervisor. There was a reorganisation of the engineering service with the result that the Supervisors were re-designated as Junior Engineers, and Junior Engineers were re-designated as Assistant Engineers. 3. Recruitment Rules under Art. 309 of the Constitution were promulgated on 29th February 1968; but they were given retrospective effect from 1st March, 1960. The Government by G.O.Ms. No. 1920, Public Works Department, dated 24th December 1977, decided to regularise the employment of the persons temporarily appointed as superviso...
Tag this Judgment!S. Samuel Nadar and ors. Vs. St.K.Vr. Veerappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ198
V. Ramaswami, J.1. An interesting question of law is raised in this Letters Patent Appeal. The facts necessary for deciding that question are as follows: The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 470 of 1972 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for enforcement of the mortgage and obtained a decree against the appellants. The sale deed in respect of the property mortgaged is in favour of appellants 1 and 2 who are husband and wife. The mortgage deed, however, was executed by the first appellant the husband, second appellant the wife and the son the third appellant. The mortgage decree also was against all those three individuals. These judgment-debtors along with their children filed an application under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (Act 38 of 1972), hereinafter called the Act, praying for scaling down the decree in accordance with the provisions of the said Act on the ground that they are debtors within the meaning of that Act. The main object...
Tag this Judgment!A. John Vs. Bhumgara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ357
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. The revision petition arises out of the order of the District Judge, Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam and the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in C.A.No. 165 of 1984, confirming the order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) of Coonoor in R.C.O.P.No. 445 of 1984. The aggrieved tenant is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent herein is the landlady of the scheduled premises tenanted to the revision petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs. 120/- as per the Gregoriam calendar. According to the respondent-landlady the revision petitioner-tenant defaulted in the payment of rent from 1.4.1980 till 31.2.1981 and the arrears amounted to Rs. 2,043/- at the time of the filing of the application for eviction. The default is wilful and hence the petition.3. The revision petitioner-tenant contended that he had paid the rent upto the end of July 1980. According to him, the landlady was not in the habit of issuing receipts and the ren...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. S. Natarajan, the Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1985
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ364Mad
K. Venkataswami, J.1. These two writ appeals are filed against a common order of Varadarajan, J. dated 7th August, 1979 in W.P. Nos. 1936 and 2997 of 1977. The learned Judge while confirming the Award of the Labour Court, ordering reinstatement of a workman by dismissing W.P. No. 1936 of 1977, also granted a relief of back wages disallowed by the Labour Court, by allowing W.P. No. 2997 of 1977. The appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P. No. 1936 of 1977 and allowing of W.P. No. 2997 of 1977, has filed these writ appeals. The facts relating to the case shortly may now be stated. 2. The appellant (hereinafter called the Management) charge-sheeted the 1st respondent herein, an employee under the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the workmen), for an alleged act of stone throwing at the show room of the Management on Mount Road, Madras and called upon the workman by issuing a charge memo on 12th February, 1974 to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Rubber Company Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer (Addl.) Labour Court an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ426
K. Venkataswami, J.1. These two writ appeals are filed against a common order of Varadarajan, J. dated 7th August, 1979 in W.P. Nos. 1936 and 2997 of 1977. The learned Judge while confirming the Award of the Labour Court, ordering reinstatement of a workman by dismissing W.P. No. 1936 of 1977, also granted a relief of back wages disallowed by the Labour Court, by allowing W.P. No. 2997 of 1977. The appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P. No. 1936 of 1977 and allowing of W.P. No. 2997 of 1977, has filed these writ appeals. The facts relating to the case shortly may now be stated.2. The appellant (hereinafter called the Management) charge-sheeted the 1st respondent herein, an employee under the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the workman), for an alleged act of stone throwing at the show room of the Management on Mount Road, Madras and called upon the workman by issuing a charge memo on 12th February, 1974 to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him ...
Tag this Judgment!Annai Indira Labour Contract Co-operative Society Represented by Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ398
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus directing the first respondent herein to register the society as applied for by the petitioner on 25.3.1982 in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.2. Mr. S. Ramalingam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urges that the rejection of the request of the petitioner for registration is arbitrary in that, having directed the petitioner to comply with the necessary formalities, to go back and reject the request of the petitioner would amount to arbitrariness. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Further, the rejection is not warranted under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The learned Additional Government Pleader says that the impugned order dated 25.10.1982 of the first respondent is self-explanatory. The rejection in this case is mainly on the ground of law and order problem, which, certainly...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniandi Vs. Logambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad279
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The second defendant in O.S. 169 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court Tiruchirapalli, is seeking to prefer the appeal against the judgment and decree of the Court below, in forma pauperis. He has filed C.M.P. 13385 of 1984 to permit him to file the appeal as an indigent person on the: ground that he has no means to pay the court-fee. A counter affidavit has been filed by the plaintiff respondent contending that the appellant's one-fourth share in the suit properties was not disputed even in the pleadings and that, therefore, that one-fourth share cannot be treated as the subject-matter of the suit. Accordingly, the contention is that the second defendant has the means to pay either from the income referable to his one-fourth share or by sale of mortgage of that share. The suit was f fled by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her one- fourth share in the plaint schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule properties origina...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Appavu Chettiar and Sons Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Ct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1985
Reported in: [1987]66STC273(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner has suffered regular orders of assessment. The petitioner has preferred appeals and pending appeals, he sought order of stay. The first respondent declined to grant the stay asked for and has directed the payment of the disputed amounts in ten monthly instalments. These orders are being challenged in the present writ petitions. I am told that security in the shape of immovable properties for the entirety of the disputed amounts has been furnished by the petitioner. It is not claimed that the security furnished is not acceptable and adequate. After adverting to the concerned statutory provisions, the first respondent says that absolute stay cannot be granted and considering the huge amount of arrears, payment of disputed amounts in instalments could be permitted. These reasonings ignore the principles enunciated by this Court on the question of stay. That there was no proper exercise of discretion on the question of grant of stay is patent from the o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›