Chennai Court August 1989 Judgments
The Management of Madras Fertilisers Ltd., Manali, Madras Vs. the Pres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ298Mad
ORDERNainar Sundram, J.1. The appellant in W.A. No. 1058 of 1983 is the management of Madras Fertilisers Limited and it shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'management'. The second-respondent in W.A. No. 1058 of 1983, who died pending the same, was in the employment of the management and he shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'employee'. The employee was the sole appellant in W.A. No. 18 of 1984. His legal representative has been brought on record as third-respondent in W.A. No. 1058 of 1983 and as the second-appellant in W.A. No. 18 of 1984 and she shall be, when occasion comes, referred to as the 'legal representative'. 2. The employee suffered an order of dismissal from service in disciplinary action at the hands of the management. He raised an industrial dispute and that was adjudicated upon by the Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Madras, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Labour Court'. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge of m...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Kedia Vs. Balaji Builders and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad232
ORDER1. These petitioners are filed to set aside the Order dated 20-4-1989 in O.S. No. 87 of 1989 and to implead the petitioner herein as second respondent in the appeal, O.S. No. 87 of 1989 came to be filed against the order in Application No. 1385 of 1989 in Application No. 5578 of 1988 in C.S. No. 34 of 1983. It was in Application No. 5578 of 1988, the highest offer made by the appellant at Rs. 23,00,000/- was accepted, and it was directed to deposit the amount with theplaintiff Hank on or before 10-3-1989, and that the plaintiff could appropriated Rupees 15,00,000/- as per order dated 26-7-1988. The remuneration of the auctioneer was fixed at RS 50,000/- Thereafter the appellant filed Application So. 1385 of 1989 asking for extension of time till 5-4-1989 for paying the balance amount stating therein the reasons which had necessitated the request for extension of time. This was rejected by a cryptic order 'no grounds to extend time are made out. Dismissed. 'It is against this Order...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sathya Moorthy and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Mad)207; [1991]189ITR491(Mad)
S. Mohan, Officiating C.J. 1. All these writ petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment, since the prayer is one and the same, viz., for a declaration that section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which imposes audit of accounts of assessees by accountants alone and restraining the other authorised and qualified practitioners as unreasonable, discriminatory and unconstitutional. In all the cases, barring W.P. No. 10765 of 1989, the petitioners are income-tax practitioners. The petitioner in W.P. No. 10765 of 1985 is an assessee. 2. It is enough if we refer to W.P. No. 3203 of 1985. The petitioner herein is an income-tax practitioner. He has been so registered with the Commissioner of Income-tax and, in the course of the exercise of his procession, he assists assessees in the preparation of accounts, balance-sheets, profit and loss accounts, statements and return of income to be filed before the income-tax authorities. He has been carrying on his profession since 1976. 3. He i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Amudha Vs. Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ234Mad; (1991)IMLJ137
1. The short facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows :The appellant herein is a B. Sc., Chemistry graduate of the University of Madras and she secured Second class in the annual examination. She got married to one Mr. Palanivelu in the year 1979. Presently she is the mother of two daughters and she was in the family way of four months at the time of filing the writ petition.2. The appellant was entertained as a Junior Chemist on and from 1st January, 1986 on contract basis, and Babu Engineering Corporation was given the contract pertaining to chemical test of soil, clay, water, oil and metal within the percincts of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli. Though the work involving chemical test by the Chemist is necessarily throughout the year, the management of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. extracted the work from the Chemist numbering about forty through Babu Engineering Corporation who paid at the rate of Rs. 10 per day to each Chemist and in that capacity, the ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Amudha Vs. Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ137
Mohan, Officiating C.J.1. The short tacts leading to the writ appeal are as follows: The appellant herein in a B.Sc., Chemistry graduate of the University of Madras and she secured second class in the annual examination. She got married to one Mr. Palanivelu in the year 1979. Presently she is the mother of two daughters and she was in the family way by four months at the time of filing the writ petition.2. The appellant was entertained as a Junior Chemist on and from 1.1.1986 on contract basis and Babu Engineering Corporation was given the contract pertaining to chemical test of soil, clay, water, oil and metal within the precincts of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli. Though the work involving chemical test by the chemist is necessarily throughout the year, the management of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited extracted the work from the Chemists numbering about forty through Babu Engineering Corporation who paid at the rate of Rs. 10 per day to each chemist and in ...
Tag this Judgment!Pichammal and ors. Vs. the General Manager Claim Settlement Branch, In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ351
Bellie, J.1. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was filed by one Lakshmi and her minor son Suresh. It appears one K. Nagarajan was working as Inspector of Works in Integral Coach Factory, Madras. On 17-5-1983 he died in a motor accident. The first plaintiff is his wife, second plaintiff is his minor son and defendants 3 and 4 are his major sons.2. According to the plaintiffs, themselves and defendants 3 and 4 being the only legal heirs of K. Nagarajan, they are entitled to receive his Provident Fund amount, Group Insurance amount. Gratuity amount, Death Relief Fund and other amounts standing to the credit of Nagarajan. They came to know that Nagarajan has nominated the second defendant, a widowed sister of his, to receive these amounts. But even though second defendant has been nominated to receive the amount the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4, being the legal heirs of Nagarajan, only are entitled to the amounts. While so the second defendant, i...
Tag this Judgment!Beama Manufacturers (P) Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Esi Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ29Mad
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. By the order of the respondent, impugned in this writ petition, there has been a levy of damages against the petitioner under Section 85-B of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner seems to have received the show cause, but according to the petitioner, it could not reply to the show clause on account of the fact that it came to know about it only on investigating into the matter, after the impugned order. The respondent has made an ex parte summary imposition of the damages, as proposed in the show cause. 2. Mr. G. Narayanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has valid explanation for the delay, for which alone damages have been levied. Learned Counsel for the petition pleads that since the determination of damages under Section 85-B of the Act is a quasi-judicial process, that has got to be done in a judicious manner, after hearing the party, who would be affected by the ultim...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Saroja, Wife of R.R. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ51
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This original petition is for grant of Letters of administration with the registered will dated 15-6-1977 annexed, which was executed by the deceased V.S. Ranganatha Chariar, who died on 9-12-1981, leaving three daughters, one of whom is the petitioner, who is the sole legatee under the will. The said other daughters have filed consent affidavits. Attestator's affidavit has been filed. All the other formalities have also been complied with. None has entered caveat.2. However, since the deceased died in 1981 itself, I had a doubt whether the petition was out of time and whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply in view of the decision reported in Kerala S.E. Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma : [1977]1SCR996 , holding that the said Article would apply to any petition or application filed under any Act and need not necessarily be a petition for application filed under the Civil Procedure Code, alone, as was the case in the corresponding residuary Article under th...
Tag this Judgment!L.D. Kanchan Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ279Mad
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. The appellant was the manager of the Byculla Branch of the Indian Overseas Bank between February, 1975 and August 1977. On 28th November 1977, a First Information Report was registered in Crime No. 56 of 1977 against the appellant herein and another person by name C. Sharma alleging commission of offences punishable under Ss. 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian penal code and S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged therein that the appellant had granted loans to certain persons who were found to be fictitious persons and that some credit vouchers were prepared by the appellant and C. Sharma and some of the cheques were encashed by them. Hence the allegations of preparation of false documents for granting loans with intent to cheat the Bank were made. 2. The appellant was placed under suspension on 11th November 1977 under Regulation 12(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Bank. 3. In the normal cours...
Tag this Judgment!Raguraman Vs. A.S. Kumaresa Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ218
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision petition, which is directed against the order of the appellate authority, Pondicherry, evicting the petitioner from the premises in his occupation, on an application filed by the respondents herein under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969(Act 5 of 1969)(hereinafter referred tc as the Act), as amended by the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment) Act, 1980, (Act 8 of 1980). The 1st respondent herein is the owner of the building and the 2nd respondent is his son. According to the case of the respondents, in 1980 the property bearing door No. 61 Clave Subbaraya Chetty Street, Pondicherry, was let out to the petitioner for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 250. In or about 1985, the petitioner is stated to have used the premises for non-residential purposes and on protests beings raised by the responde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »