Chennai Court August 1986 Judgments
Leos Mercantile Corporation, Madras Vs. Ministry of Labour, Govt. of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ35Mad; (1987)IIMLJ332
ORDER1. By the impugned order passed under S. 19A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (Act 19 of 1952) hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' the bringing of the petitioner within the purview of the Act has been upheld. The petitioner filed an application under S. 19A of the Act raising a dispute that the provisions of the Act would not apply to its establishment. Notice for enquiry into this petition was given on 16th January, 1980 and it was duly served. The enquiry by the legal adviser, the authority under S. 19A of the Act was proposed to be held at Madras on 30th January, 1980. The petitioner on 23rd January, 1980 sent a petition for adjournment, the body of which runs in the following terms : 'Dear Sir, We have been advised by the Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, - vide his letter cited above that our representation has been fixed for hearing by your goodselves at Madras in the Office of the Regional Provi...
Tag this Judgment!Leos Mercantile Corporation by Its Prop. A.S.R. Murthy Vs. the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ332
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. By the impugned order passed under Section 19A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952) hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' the bringing of the petitioner within the purview of the Act has been upheld. The petitioner filed an application under Section 19A of the Act raising a dispute that the provisions of the Act would not apply to its establishment. Notice for enquiry into this petition was given on 16th January, 1980 and it was duly served. The enquiry by the legal adviser, the authority under S.19A of the Act, was proposed to be held at Madras on 30th January, 1980. The petitioner on 23rd January, 1980 sent a petition for adjournment, the body of which runs in the following terms:Dear Sir,We have been advised by the Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, - vide his letter cited above that our representation has been fixed for hearing by your goodselves at Madras in the Of...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Subramanian Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcemen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC223
Maheswaran, J.1. These three civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (Southzone) Madras (for short-Board) on 30th June, 1980. The Board confirmed the finding that K. T. Subramanian, the appellant in C.M.A. 119 of of 1981, V. E. Vairavan appellant in C.M.A. 120 of 1981 and Arumugham, the appellant in C.M.A. 121 of 1981, are guilty of contravention of S. 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on each for the said contravention. The Board also confirmed the order of confiscation of Rs. 20,000/- seized from Subramanian and Rs. 30,000/- seized from the residence of Vairavan and two drafts of Rs. 5,000/- each seized from Arumugam, to Central Government. 2. The gravamen of the charge against K. T. Subramainan is that he received Rs. 30,000/- without the general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India from a local person othe...
Tag this Judgment!M. Arunachalam Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC229
Maheswaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), confirming the order of the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, finding the appellant guilty of contravention of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and imposing on him a penalty of Rs. 6,000.2. The gravamen of the charge is that the appellant received Rs. 30,000 from an unknown person in India in May, 1974 on instructions from one Rakappa Chettiar, who was residing in Malaysia without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant gave a statement admitting the receipt of the amount on instructions from Rakappa Chettiar. The appellant contends before us that the Board was wrong in acting on the statement of the appellant that the amount was received from Malaysia on instructions from Rakappa Chettiar, that this statement was written to a dictation of the Enforcement Officers concerned, a...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Kannan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Reptd. by the Commr. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ294
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. Consequent upon a charge memo being given to the appellant in the matter of using intemperate language and making false and frivolous allegations against the staff in Chengalpattu Collectorate and the Public Prosecutor, after considering the explanation given by the appellant, the Government made an Order of punishment which read as follows:Accordingly the Government hereby consider and direct that the increment of Thiru T.C. Kannan Assistant Public Prosecutor II (Metropolitan) be stopped for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The period of stoppage of increment should be reckoned inclusive of intervals spent on leave as per Ruling 2(e) under Fundamental Rule 24. The effect of this stoppage of increment on the pension has been considered and it is intended to have that effect.The Order was made on 29th April, 1980.2. However, prior to the date of this Order an amendment was introduced by way of a proviso to Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services ...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Madras Vs. M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC218; AIR1987Mad151; (1987)IMLJ423
Sathiadev, J.1. The appeals are preferred by respondent-Corporation in M. A. C. T. O. P. 230 and 253 of 1979 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli. The petitioners therein are the respective respondents herein. Parties are referred to as before Tribunal.2. It was claimed by petitioners that, on 28-12-1978, while they were proceeding in a car MSW 4958 at about 2.15 a.m. near Chinnaru, the express bus TMN 8075 belonging to respondent-Corporation came in opposite direction very fast, and in the process of overtaking two lorries, which were going ahead of it, it dashed against the car causing damage not only to the car but also caused grievous injuries to the petitioners. Hence, they have filed two O.Ps. Claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 respectively.3. Respondent stated that it was the car which was driven recklessly, and on immediately seeing the approaching car, driver of the bus applied brakes, and the vehicle skidded, and pulled to its...
Tag this Judgment!Sekar Mudaliar and Etc Vs. Shajathi Bi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad239; (1987)IMLJ248
1. These two appeals have been preferred by the 16th defendant and defendants 10 to 13 in O.S. 49 of 1973, Sub Court, Tirupattur, North Arcot District, questioning the correctness of the judgment and the decrees of the Courts below holding that the properties settled by late Kuttamalangu Moosa Sahib under a settlement deed dated 5-3-1948 in favour of defendants 8, 14 and 15 and the husband of the 10th defendant and father of defendants It to 13 in the suit, are also available for partion. There is no dispute that the properties dealt with by late Kuttarnalangu Moosa Sahib under the settlement deed Ex. B-3 dated 5-3-1948 belonged to him. The 1st respondent in Second Appeal No. 1418 of 1979 and the only respondent in Second Appeal No. 618 of 1979, who figured as the plaintiff in the suit, challenged the validity of the settlement under Ex. B-3 on the ground that it was obtained by the settlees fraudulently and collusively and that it was in any event a death-bed gift and as such, invalid...
Tag this Judgment!Sekar Mudaliar Vs. Shajathi Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ248
Ratnam, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by the 16th defendant and defendants 10 to 13 in O.S. 49 of 1973, Sub-Court, Tirupattur.North Arcot District, questionings the correctness of the judgment and the decree of the courts below holding that the porperties settled by late Kuttamalangu Moosa Sahib under a settlement deed, dated 5th March, 1948 in favour of defendants 8, 14 and 18 and the husband of the 10th defendant and father of defendants 11 to 13 in the suit, are also available for partition. There is no dispute that the properties dealt with by late Kuttamalangu Moosa Sahib under the settlement deed, Ex. B.3 dated 5th March, 1948 belonged to him. The 1st respondent in Second Appeal No. 1418 of 1979 and the only respondent in Second Appeal No. 618 of 1979. Who figured as the plaintiff in suit, challenged the validity of the settlement under Ex. B3 on the ground that it was obtained by the settlees fradulently and collusively and that it was in any event a death bed gift ...
Tag this Judgment!Southern India Education Trust Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appella ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC307
T. Sathiadev, J.1. The Southern India Education Trust represented by its Chairman is the appellant herein. Action was initiated against it for contravention of the provisions of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 by issue of a show cause notice dated 4-3-1975 stating therein that in the year 1970, without the general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India, it had received otherwise than through an authorised dealer in foreign exchange various amounts aggregating to Rs. 3,16,449 by order of persons resident outside India, and which amounts were credited to their account with the Bank of Baroda, Teynampet, Madras on different dates as detailed in the Annexure thereto. Appellant sent its reply and thereafter personal hearings were held, and both the authorities have concurrently held that appellant had contravened as charged, and ultimately, a penalty of Rs. 20,000 having been imposed, this appeal is preferred.2. The Directorate of Enforcement claim...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›