Chennai Court September 1989 Judgments
K. Singaram Vs. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ603Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner in the writ petition was working as an Inspector, Grade-I in the first respondent Company. Charges were framed against him and he was dismissed from service on 6th June, 1980. He filed an appeal to the General Manager of the Company on 18th August, 1980 which was rejected by order dated 28th January, 1981. Thereafter he filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act before the second respondent. One of the objections raised by the first respondent was that the first respondent was exempted from the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act by virtue of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. That objection was overruled by the second respondent as he placed reliance on a decision of Kerala Full Bench in Canara Bank v. Appellate Authority : (1981)IILLJ189Ker . The second respondent also went into the merits and gave findings against the writ petitioner. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of South India Sugars Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ355
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The Management of South India Sugars Ltd., Mundiambakkam, has filed this writ petition challenging the award passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Madras in I.D. No. 75 of 1981. By the award, the Labour Court has confirmed the findings given by the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry that the second respondent herein was guilty of a conduct which can be characterised as subversive of discipline and that he was guilty of the charges levelled against him. But, the Labour Court interfered with the punishment awarded to the second respondent. The Labour Court took the view that the dismissal of the second respondent from service was an extreme punishment which was disproportionate to the misconduct and there was no valid ground for upholding the said punishment. Consequently, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and imposed a punishment of deprivation of salary and all monetary benefits including increment due to the second respondent for a period ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Singaram Vs. the Management of United India Insurance Company Limit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ23
ORDERM. Srinivasan J.1. The Petitioner in the writ petition was working as an Inspector Grade-I in the first respondent company. Charges were framed against him and he was dismissed from service on 6-6-1980. He filed an appeal on 18-8-1980 which was rejected by order dated 28-1-1981. Thereafter he filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act before the second respondent. One of the objections raised by the first respondent was that the first respondent was exempted from the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act by virture of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. The objection was over-ruled by the second respondent as he placed reliance on a decision of Kerala Full Bench in Canara Bank v. Appellate Authority (1981) L I.C.1043. The second respondent also went into the merits and gave findings against the writ petitioner. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the second respondent.2. In this writ petition, the order of t...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs and anr. Vs. Ranjit Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC27
S. Mohan, O.C.J.1. The proposition of law as laid down by the learned single Judge cannot be accepted. The learned Judge has observed as follows: Under Section 110(1) of the Act, a seizure could take place without issue of any order of seizure. It is only in respect of those goods where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the owner of the goods is to be served with an order by the proper officer not to remove, part with or otherwise deal with the goods by the owner. Therefore, there may be instances wherein the proper officer would come into custody of goods in the normal course of export and import transactions like violation of proper duty payable thereon, etc. In the course of inspection, if he found that there had been any contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, the proper officer would physically retain the custody of the goods and proceed with confiscation proceedings. The language of the provisions of the Act are to the effect that in such circumstances, h...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ramaiya Vs. S. Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1989
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ518
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed by the respondent-plaintiff against the order in I.A. No. 1046 of 1989 allowing the petition for impleading the Planning Authority, Pondicherry and the Commissioner, Oulgaret Commune Panchayat as party-defendants.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows:The revision petitioner filed the suit for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit B Schedule property, for recovery of possession by evicting the respondent from the encroached B Schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment/and possession of the revision petitioner. The said suit was contested by the respondent herein and in his written statement, it is stated that the Planning Authority, Pondicherry, and the Commissioner Oulgaret Commune Panchayat are necessary parties, as even in the plaint it is stated that there is a Government Irriga...
Tag this Judgment!The Management, Krishnaveni Roadways, Madurai Vs. I.P. Punnaivanam and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ137Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The only question which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is, whether the first respondent is entitled to claim wages as he had done for the period during which he was under suspension till the date of his dismissal. He was under suspension from 19th February, 1980. The order of dismissal was passed on 27th August, 1980. Admittedly there are no Standing Orders for the petitioner Establishment. There are no Rules and Regulations providing for suspension or payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Hence, the Labour Court, Madurai, came to the right conclusion that even after the suspension, the relationship of employer and employee did not come to an end and the employer was bound to pay wages during the period of suspension. 2. It was next contended that the order of dismissal passed against the first respondent was with retrospective effect from the date of suspension. The decisions of this Court in Multi-Purpose Co-operativ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Tiruppur Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ546
Srinivasan, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore made in I.D. No. 96 of 1981 by which the non-employment of two workers was held to by unjustified. The award directed reinstatement of the workers with backwages in accordance with law.2. The charge against the two workmen viz. Shanmugam and Albert Leo was that, while working in the factory in the day-shift on 28-6-1980, they removed the fuse wire in the fuse carrier of the main O.C.B., when electricity was being supplied from the generator. According to the management/petitioner, when the third shift started current was available from the main grid and due to absence of fuse wires, there was no supply of electricity from the grid to the factory, with the result that the factory could not be run for quite some time. The Electrical Supervisor checked all the electrical installations and fpund that the fuse wire was missing, which caused the dislocation of work in the factory. On the basis o...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Balaji Finance Syndicate Vs. S.M. Bhakthavatchalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad211
ORDER1. This petition is for adjudicating the respondent-insolvent on the ground that he has committed act of insolvency under Sec. 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.2. The allegations in the petition may be summed up as follows:-- In respect of the finance agreement entered into at Madras between the parties, the petitioner obtained a decree after contest against the respondent on 1-12-1983 in C.S. No. 391 of 1981, on the file of this Court for a sum of Rs. 1,48,152-30 with interest. As the respondent did not settle the decree amount, the petitioner filed Insolveny Notice No. 43 of 1986 on the file of this Court. However, the respondent filed Application No. 78 of 1987 to set aside the said notice. But the said application was dismissed on 29-11-1988 without paying the amount decreed. The respondent is carrying on business at No. 36, Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Madras-2 for the last 10 years and the security created under the decree in favour of the petitioner over the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. the Appellate Authority Under ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ459
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In these two writ petitions the common order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is being challenged. The facts are similar in both the cases. The third respondent in each of the petitions resigned from service and applied for gratuity. The amounts claimed by them were paid in full by the writ petitioner. After some time, they filed applications before the second respondent claiming that they would be entitled to some more amounts by way of gratuity and there was some error in the calculations when they claimed gratuity from the writ petitioner. The applications were opposed by the writ petitioner on the following three grounds:(i) The applications were barred by limitation,(ii) The applicants were estopped from making any claim for further amounts of gratuity, they having received the amounts already claimed by them from the employer; and(iii) The applicants were not entitled to any extra amount by way of gratuity as claimed by the...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Kannammai Achi and ors. Vs. Coffee Board, Represented by the Acco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ553
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioners challenge the communication of the first respondent herein dated 23-12-1988, informing that in view of the disputes between the registered owners and owner in possession, the Board is not in a position to release the pool payments to the registered owners in the absence of court order. 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 3-7-1989. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through counsel. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit and appears through the counsel.3. The dispute relates to a coffee plantation which is grown in Pattipadi Estate. The petitioners herein and the third respondent are the owners of the Estate. Out of 45 acres of land, about ten acres of land is in the name of the third respondent and the rest is owned by the petitioners and the Coffee Registration Certificate and Central Excise Licence are in their names. As there in a separate civil dispute in C.M.A. 505 of 1986, regarding the other properties of Yercaud and othe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »