Chennai Court April 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ923Mad
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In these two writ petitions, applications were preferred by persons, stated to be employees of the petitioner, for determination of the amount of gratuity under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 39 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The applications were not preferred within the time prescribed. There is a move to have the delay condoned. The first respondent in these two writ petitions, without first deciding the question of condonation of delay would say, by the impugned orders, that the main applications themselves would be considered, both on merits as well as from the angle of delay. Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, does prescribe a time limit for preferring an application of present nature. When there is a delay in preferring the application, the authority has to condone the delay, on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant. This he must do first. This is the implic...
S.V. Chidambara Pillai Vs. S.N.V.R.N. Subramaniam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ254
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The revision petition arises out of an application filed by the first respondent herein for impleading respondents 2 to 4 as petitioners in R.C.O.P. No. 134 of 1982 which is an application for eviction filed by the first respondent on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application by the first respondent that since the R.C.O.P. had been pending for more than three years, he had sold the property to third parties and that they were entitled to continue the petition for eviction. This application was opposed by the petitioner herein and the Rent Controller overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and ordered the application. That order was affirmed on appeal by the appellate authority in C.M.A. No. 46 of 1987.2. In this revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends vehemently that it is not open to the original land lord to implead the purchasers as parties to t...
Shanmugham Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1988
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT196(Mad)
ORDER1. This petition coming on for hearing on Monday the fourth day of April, 1988 and on this day, upon perusing the Petition and the order of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. S. Arunachalam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. S. Govindasamy, Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) on behalf of the State, the Court made the following order :- This revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7(1) read with 2(i-a)(M) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the sentences of simple imprisonment for three months and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for three months by the learner Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, which were confirmed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry. 2. The fact which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly stated as follow : The Food Inspector P.W. 1 sto...
Veerasami Chettiar Vs. the Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1988
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC100
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1. This is a revision against the order regarding return of property. On 21.4.1982 there was a theft of three jewels weighing 20 sovereigns in total from the house of one Veerasami. Upon complaint by the latter, a case was registered as Crime No. 70 of 1982 by the Thanjavur Police Station. On investigation it was found that the jewels were taken away by Ilango, son of Veerasami himself. Upon the statement of Ilango, the jewels were recovered on 24.4.1982 and sent to court. On 3.6.1982 Ilango pleaded guilty of the offence and was accordingly convicted.2. Thereupon Veerasami filed an application for return of the jewels stolen from his house. The Magistrate conducted an enquiry under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, found that Veerasami, the Revision Petitioner herein is the rightful owner entitled to the return of the property. However, he ordered the jewels to be sent to the Gold Control Officer in accordance with the circular P.Dis. No. 205 of 19...
Veerasami Chettiar Vs. the Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Taluk Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ790
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1. This is a revision against the order regarding return of property. On 21-4-1982, there was a theft of three jewels weighing 20 sovereigns in total from the house of one Veerasami. Upon complaint by the latter, a case was registered as crime No. 70 of 1982 by the Thanjavur Police Station. On investigation it was found that the jewels were taken away by Ilango, son of Veerasami himself. Upon the statement of Ilango, the jewels were recovered on 24-4-1982 and sent to court. On 3-6-1982 Ilango pleaded guilty of the offence and was accordingly convicted.2. Thereupon Veeraswami filed an application for return of the jewels stolen from his house. The Magistrate conducted an enquiry under Section 452 Cr. P.C. found that Veerasami, the revision petitioner herein is the rightful owner entitled to the return of the property. However, he ordered the jewels to be sent to the Gold Control Officer in accordance with the circular P. Dis. No. 205 of 1984 dated 24-10-1984, of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›