Chennai Court August 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.
The Workmen of India Cements Limited, Reptd. by the Secretary, Sankari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ413
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Labour Union of India Cements Limited, Sankari for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari quashing the award dt.31-5-1982 passed by the first respondent-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore in his I.D.No. 18 1981 and published in the Government Gazette dated 7-7-1982 and pass such other and necessary orders.2. In June, 1971 the petitioner Union called a strike of the workmen in the second respondent-the India Cements Limited, Sankari. During the continuance of the strike the management suspended 19 workmen including the five in respect of whom this writ petition has been filed for participating in the strike and for instigating other workmen. On 1-7-1971 a settlement was reached between the petitioner-Union and the management in the presence of the then Honourable Minister for Labour, Government of Tamil Nadu. under Clause (4) of the said accord the nineteen, workmen on suspension were allowed to work without prejudice...
Ramalingam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: 1990ACJ443
T. Sathiadev, J.1. The point involved in this revision petition is whether the suit filed in Sub-Court, Vellore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,000/- by way of damages suffered by plaintiff's jeep bearing registration No. TNJ 1470 in a collision with the lorry bearing registration No. MDT 4606 belonging to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, is maintainable?2. It is claimed that, at about 11.15 a.m. on 29.12.1979, when the jeep was passing through the Palar Bridge near Vellore, the lorry was coming in the opposite direction and as it was being driven rashly and negligently, it collided with the jeep and ran over a man and killed him. A sum of Rs. 35,000/- had to be spent to put the vehicle back on the road. Therefore, this suit had been filed. Apart from the other defences taken, one of the points taken was that the claim for damages to the vehicle is no longer maintainable in a civil court, because of proviso to Section 110-A(l) and Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act. The trial court held t...
G. Subramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ418
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ to quash G.O.Ms.No. 135 Health & Family Welfare Department dated 22-1-1985 of the first respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu and to pass such further and necessary orders.2. This petitioner joined the service of the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Department of Health and Family Welfare as an Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Gudiyatham. In course of time, he was promoted and became the Professor and Head of the Department of Medicine, Government Erskine Hospital, Madurai. He was due to retire on the afternoon on 30-6-1977 on attaining the age of superannuation. That afternoon, he was informed by the Dean of the Madurai Medical College that a telephonic message had been received by him from the first respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, placing the petitioner under suspension and not permitting him to retire. G.O.Ms.No. 1547, dated 30-6-1977 passed by the ...
Ramalingam Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Boa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ485
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. The point involved in this revision petition is whether the suit filed in Sub-Court, Vellore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,000 by way of damages suffered by plaintiffs jeep bearing Registration No. TNJ 1470 in a collision with the lorry bearing Registration No. MDT 4606 belonging to defendants 1 and 2, is maintainable?2. It is claimed that, at about 11.15 a.m. on 29.12.1979, when the jeep was passing through the Palar Bridge near Vellore, the lorry was coming in the opposite direction and as it was being driven rashly and negligently, it collided with the jeep and ran over a man and killed him. A sum of Rs. 35,000 had to be spent to put the vehicle back on the road. Therefore, this suit had been filed. Apart from the other defences taken, one of the points taken was that, the claim for damages to the vehicle is no longer maintainable in a Civil Court, because of proviso to Section 110A (1) and 110F of the Motor Vehicles Act. The trial Court held that the plainti...
M. Viswanathan Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ473Mad
ORDER1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in reference letter Dis. No. 271/G2/72 dated. 12th July 1972 of Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein and all other connected and related records for the purpose and quashing the same, directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the Grade I Tamil Pandit so as to enable the petitioner for his due and legitimate promotion to the Selection Grade and for such monetary compensation permissible in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner in the accompanying affidavit sworn to by him runs thus : He is a Tamil Pandit Grade I working in Government Board High School Mudis. He should have been promoted to Grade I Tamil Pandit soon after he finished his Pandit training on 1st December, 1960 as per G.O. No. 2221/D/17th August 1960. But, without any justifiable cause or reason, he was denied of the promotion till he made repre...
Jayaram Metal Rolling Mills Vs. the Superintendent of Central Excise, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: 1993(43)ECC111
ORDER1. By order dated 23.11.1978 the Superintendent of Central Excise, Madras, ordered the confiscation of 450 kg. of brass sheets and articles seized from the petitioner mills. The petitioner was given an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/- within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.2. This order was an appealable one. Under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, the petitioner had a period of three months for preferring appeal. The appeal itself was disposed of by order dated 17.4.1980 and the Appellate Authority held that the redemption fine shall be only Rs. 1,500/-. When the petitioner received information that the confiscated goods are to be auctioned, he filed an application for permission to redeem the confiscated goods. They also pleaded that they had paid all the amounts as per the orders of the Appellate Authority. But the Assistant Collector by his order dated 4.10.1980 has held that since the petitioner has not exercised...
The President, Cholan Pokkuvarathu Kazhagam, Madras Vs. the Presiding ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR488]; (1989)IILLJ233Mad
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge in W.P. 609 of 1979. That writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein against the award of the first respondent in I.D. 21 of 1977 in so far as it related to the workman T. Sambandam. The appellant Union is advancing the cause of the workman. T. Sambandam. I.D. 21 of 1977 covered a controversy with reference to a number of workmen, including the workman T. Sambandam, of the second respondent. The question of non-employment of the workmen, including the workman T. Sambandam, was put in issue before the first respondent and the first respondent found no warrant for interference with regard to the non-employment of the workman T. Sambandam by the second respondent and dismissed the reference so far as the said workman is concerned. In the writ petition and consequently in this writ appeal, the court is not troubled with the other parts of the award concerning the other workmen. The le...
D. Albert Vs. Lalitha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad73
Srinivasan, J.1. The appellant herein instituted the suit, O.S. 130 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, for a declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property and the lodging business run therein, for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property and the business and for a mandatory injunction directing the second defendant Municipality to issue a licence to run the business in the said premises. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is the Pondicherry Municipality. According to the plaintiff, he sent moneys from Saudi Arabia where he was employed to his mother with instructions to purchase land and construct the building in the suit property and that the business was started on his instructions as he desired to give up his foreign assignment and settle down in India. He alleged that after his arrival to India and taking charge...
N. Sundaram Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation Represented by Regional Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ389
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ quashing the order of the Regional Director of the first respondent - Indian Airlines Corporation in MAA/RD/ADMN./1-6/581, dated 9-1-1981 confirming the order of the second respondent - Commercial Manager in his reference MAA: CM:Admn., 1-6/11058, dated 4-9-1980 and pass such other necessary orders.2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are these The petitioner was employed as Traffic Assistant in the first respondent-Indian Airlines Corporation at Madras Airport. He was transferred to Vijayawada, and this transfer was challenged by him in vain in W.P.No. 2628 of 78 on the file of this Court. He then reported for duty at Vijayawada and was working there as Traffic Assistant. On 6-11-1978 he applied for privilege leave from 8-12-1978 to 31-12-1978 for giving surgical treatment to his wife for sceptic ...
Kanniammal and anr. Vs. P. Narayanan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad350; (1988)IIMLJ382
Acts/Rules/Orders: Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Sections 24 and 25; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Section 110; Constitution of india - Article 227Cases Referred: Varalakshmi Sundar v. Meeran, (1980) 93 Mad LW 540; Annamalai v. M. Arumugaswamy, (1982) 95 Mad LW 687; Rajeshwari v. United India Insurance Co., 1984 Ace CJ 273, AIR 1984 Mad 170; State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji, AIR 1968 SC 14SI; Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji, AIR 1968 SC 1481; Bhagwati Devi v. I.S. Goel, 1983 Acc CJ 123; State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi, 1979 Acc CJ 205, AIR 1979 SC 855Disposition: Petition AllowedOrderM. Srinivasan, J. 1. This is a petition to transfer M. O. P. No. 514/87 from the file of the District Court, Veltore to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras.2, In the affidavit filed in support of this petition it is stated that the petitioners and 1st respondent are all residents of Madras.The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry. The 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company having its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »