Chennai Court October 1989 Judgments
E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1989
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ250Mad
1. When we adjourned the matter to enable the parties to produce copies of settlements entered between them by virtue of which payments of part of the bonus awarded by the Tribunal were made to workers other than those covered by the interlocutory order of this Court, the writ petitioners filed a petition for review of our judgment regarding grant of interest by the Tribunal. The same is posted before us as W.M.P. No. 20389 of 1989. The ground urged in the review petition is that the Interest Act of 1978 having come into force only in August, 1981, is not applicable to this case as the proceedings before the Tribunal were pending already. No doubt, we did not notice the fact that the Interest Act of 1978 came into force three years later in 1981 and, therefore, not applicable to this case. But, that will not vitiate our conclusion on the question of interest. We have held that the Industrial Tribunal having powers wider than a civil Court in the matter of adjudication of an industrial ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Ltd. Represented by Its Division ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ444
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This revision petition fs against the concurrent order dated 30.3.1989 in C.M.A. No. 176 of 1986 on the file of the District Judge, Uthagamandalam, dismissing the appeal preferred by the management, Nelliyalam Tea Division, Gudalur Taluk (TANTEA) against the three respondents who are the appellant's employees. The respondents filled a petition before the Deputy Commis- ' sioner of Labour, Coimbatore under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936, against the appellant, claiming a sum of Rs. 4,237.74 on the ground that the said amount has been deducted from their wages for the months of January to August, 1985. The case of the respondents is that though they were ordinary workers under the appellant, they were asked to work as night watchmen during the abovesaid period and that since they had so worked, they are entitled to 11/2 times the wages of an ordinary worker.2. The main defence of the appellant was that the matter could not be agitated under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D. Parry (India) Limited Vs. the Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ25
Srinivasan, J.1. When we adjourned the matter to enable the parties to produce copies of settlements entered between them by virtue of which payments of part of the bonus awarded by the Tribunal were made to workers other than those covered by the interlocutory order of this Court, the writ petitioners filed a petition for review of our judgment regarding grant of interest by the Tribunal. The same is posted before us as W.M.P. No. 20389 of 1989. The ground urged in the review petition is that the Interest Act of 1978 having come into force only in August, 1981, is not applicable to this case as the proceedings before the Tribunal were pending already. No doubt, we did not notice the fact that the Interest Act of 1978 came into force three years later in 1981 and, therefore, not applicable to this case. But, that will not vitiate our conclusion on the question of interest. We have held that the Industrial Tribunal having powers wider than a civil Court in the matter of adjudication of ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmipathy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC583
Arunachalam, J.1. The petitioner was tried in C.C.No. 3043 of 1984 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras for an offence under 8.304(A), I.P.C.(2 counts) and sentenced to undergo 5 months rigorous imprisonment under each count. The petitioner also faced a charge under Section l 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 weeks.2. The aggrieved petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No. 105 of 1985 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, confirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Court.3. In this revision, the correctness of the convictions and sentences are challenged. The brief facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision can now be staled. The petitioner was a driver of Pallavan Transport Corporation bus TMI 8807. On 6.5.1984 at about 7.15 A.M. he drove the said bus along N.S.K. R...
Tag this Judgment!Annapoorani Ammal (Died) and Others Vs. Ramaswamy Naicker and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad361
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The question that presented difficulty to the learned Judge of this Court and which obliged them to refer the same to a Full Bench concerns the legal propriety of the plaintiff, who sued for specific performance of a contract of a sale and who also, in the same suit, asked in the alternative, for the relief of refund of earnest money or advance money, paid under the contract of sale, preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree of the first Court, which granted him only the relief of return of the earnest money or advance money, on denying him the relief of specific performance. There are two pronouncements, both of Division Bench of this Court: One in Sakku Bai Ammal v. R. Babu Reddiar, : AIR1977Mad223 and the other in Senniappa Gounder v. V.K. Venkataraman, (1981) 94 MLW 591. The earlier Bench expressed the view that when the plaintiff asked for reliefs in the alternative, he places such reliefs on par with each other and he makes an election even t...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India, Represented by the Chief General Manager Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ447
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the first-respondents in I.D. No. 75 of 1978. That industrial dispute related to the termination of the services of one Uma Shankar, here in a after referred to as the workman, by the petitioner. The issue referred for adjudication by the first-respondent read as follows:Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Madras, in terminating the services of Shri. K. Umashankar, Cashier with effect from 5.10.1973 while retaining Shri. Mathia kumar, Junior to him, in the service of the bank, is justified? if not, to what relief is the workmen concerned entitled?. The necessary facts have got to be set down for the purpose of appreciating the Submissions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counter submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the workman. On 15.2.1973, the workman was appointed as a temporary clerk by the petitioner and the terms of appointment ran as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nankchand Jain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR158(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has referred to this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee did not conceal the particulars of his income and accordingly in canceling the penalty of Rs. 23,000 imposed under section 21(1)(c) for the assessment year 1970-71 ' 2. The assessment year is 1970-71. Initially, the respondent, hereinafter referred to as assessee, returned a loss of Rs 4,860 for the assessment year 1970-71. Subsequently, a revised return was filed accounting for in come in a sum of Rs. 34,790. While finalising the assessment, the assessment, the Income-tax Officer noticed that there were no drawings for domestic expenses. It was also found that the assessee had contributed to a chit fund a sum amounting to Rs. 46,000 up to October 16, 1969, and as the assessee wa...
Tag this Judgment!Tmad Vs. Govindarajulu V. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: [1990]32ITD1(Mad)
ORDER (DICTATED IN OPEN COURT)Per Shri George Cheriyan (Senior Vice-President) - This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1984-85. The appeal raises a very interesting issue. Fortunately for us there are certain facts which are not in dispute. The assessee constructed a house property. He had taken certain loans for that property. In the accounting year, some of those loans were repaid. Such repayments were made by taking other loans. For the latter loans taken for repaying the original loan, the rate of interest was higher. The genuineness of the loans taken for repaying the original loans is not in dispute. The fact that the latter loans were taken for repaying the original loans was also not in dispute. The interest paid this year was Rs. 50,826. The ITO found that in the earlier year interest paid was Rs. 35,948. According to the ITO, the loans this year were taken at a higher rate of interest and were also taken subsequent to the construction of the property and,...
Tag this Judgment!Bhargavakula Nainargal Sangam and ors. Vs. Arunachala Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ4
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. These second appeals and the civil revision petition have come before us on a reference made by Ratnavel Pandian, J. (as he then was) by his judgment dt. 8-9-1980 made in Second Appeal Nos. 1461 to 11466 of 1980. As the point of law involved in the other matters is also same, they are also posted along with the said second appeals.2. One Bhargavakula Nainargal Sangam, represented by its President, Dhandapani filed the suit in O.S. Nos. 133 of 1978, 135 of 1978, 137 of 1978, 139 of 1978/141 of 1978, 143 of 1978 and 145 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Vellore for eviction of the defendants from the respective suit properties on the ground that they are the tenants under plaintiff Sangam. It is relevant to point out at the outset that the said suits are filed after the petitions filed before the learned Rent Controller, Vellore were dismissed on the ground that the properties in question are vacant sites and therefore, he has no jurisdiction to entertain ...
Tag this Judgment!S.E., Madurai Elecy. System Vs. V. Baluswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1989
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ240Mad
ORDERSathiadev. J. 1. On judgment pronounced on September 28, 1989, learned Counsel Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, points out that he had taken up a point that S.O. 21(vii) (g) had not been complied with before passing the order of removal from service, and therefore, the order dated May 5, 1978 is illegal. The said S.O. reads as follows:'In awarding punishment, the punishing authority shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record of the workman and of any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist'.This point was not canvassed before the learned Judge though it is claimed that this was raised in the departmental appeal preferred against the said order. Even in the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 5044 of 1980, this point had not been taken. Yet, during argument in W.A. this point having been taken, on his oral plea to review the judgment, the point as taken by him, is considered hereunder:2. He contends that, if a S.O. is not complied with, the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »