Chennai Court August 1991 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.
N. Palanisamy Vs. C. Rathinasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ6
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order directing the appellant to deposit one half of the decree amount in the Court as a condition for setting aside the ex parte decree. The Court gave time to the appellant till 5.8.1991 and adjourned the matter to 6.8.1991 for further orders. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order imposing the condition on the ground that it is an onerous condition.2. The appeal has to be dismissed on two grounds. First, the appeal itself is not maintainable and secondly there is no merit. The order that is challenged in this appeal is not one which will fall under Order 43, Rule1(d). Under the said rule, an order under Rule 13 of Order 9 rejecting an application for an order to set aside a decree passed ex pane is the order which is appeal able. In this case, there is no order rejecting the application. The order is only imposing a condition on the appellant for the purpose of setting aside the ex parte decree passed again...
Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC325; 1991(56)ELT705(Mad); (1992)IIMLJ43
ORDERMishra, J.1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court, is directed against the judgment of Kanakaraj, J., in W.P.No. 3880 of 1991. The petitioner/appellant is the company engaged in importing of stainless steel melting scrap. It has got L-4 licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for manufacturing ingots after melting such imported stainless scrap. In or about February, 1991, according to the petitioner/appellant, its Managing Director contacted one Ashinkumar Kamdar, who was known as Indentor as well as Import Consultant in field of iron and steel and other allied products, and informed him that the petitioner/appellant company would like to import stainless steel scrap at a competitive price. Kamdar suggested to import such scrap materials and also promised to help in securing materials. Thereupon, Kamdar floated enquiries and procured an officer from an exporter of Singapore by name K. Ramanlal & Co., Private Limited. Accordingly, it is said...
Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ43
Mishra, J.1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court, is directed against the judgment of Kanakaraj, J., in W.P.No.3880 of 1991. The petitioner/appellant is the company engaged in importing of stainless steel melting scrap. It has got L-4 licence under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 for manufacturing ingots after melting such imported stainless scrap. In or about February, 1991, according to the petitioner/appellant, its Managing Director contacted one Ashinkumar Kamdar, who was known as Indentor as well as Import Consultant in the field of iron and steel and other allied product's, and informed him that the petitioner/appellant company would like to import stainless steel scrap at a competitive price. Kamdar suggested to import such scrap materials and also promised to help in securing materials. Thereupon, Kamdar floated enquiries and procured an offer from an exporter of Singapore by name K. Ramanlal & Co., Private Limited. Accordingly, it is said tha...
Ramasamy Vs. Tulajabai Animal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ3
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. The tenant in rent control proceedings is the petitioner in this C.R.P. The 1st respondent filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 72 of 1979, on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Coimbatore, a petition for eviction of the tenant, namely, the petitioner herein, on the grounds that he wilfully defaulted in payment of rents, that the premises in the occupation of the tenant, is required for own use and occupation, namely, for the use of her son who is a Medical Doctor, as a consulting room, and on the ground that the tenant has sub-let the premises without the written authorisation of the landlady.2. The petitioner herein resisted the eviction petition inter alia contending that there was no subletting at all. The second respondent herein is his own son-in-law and looking after his (petitioner's) business, and that the premises in his (petitioner's) occupation was not suitable for a Medical Doctor to use it as a consulting room, and the requirement was also not bo...
In Re: Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas63(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J. 1. Company Petition No. 59 of 1990 was filed by Ucal Fuel Systems Limited, having its registered office at No. 118, Anna Salai, Madras 2, and Company petition No. 60 of 1990 was filed by Suncarb Private Limited, having its registered office at No. 8, Haddows Road, madras-6. Both the company petitions were filed under sections 392 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', praying for according sanction to a scheme of amalgamation of the aforesaid two companies. Ucal Fuel Systems Limited is a public limited company and it is the transferee company. Suncarb Private Limited is a private limited company and is the transferor company. The scheme submitted to the court for sanction involves amalgamation of the transferor company with the transferee company and amongst others it involves dissolution without winding up. 2. Suncarb Private Limited, Madras-6, the transferor-company, was incorporated on November 7, 1985, under the provisions of the Ac...
V.P. Revathi Vs. Asha Bagree
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas372(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in C.C. Nos. 2489 and 2490 of 1990 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, has filed these petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid C.C. Nos. 2489 and 2490 of 1990 and quash the same. 2. In C.C. Nos. 2489 of 1990, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The complainant is a private limited company. The accused is the proprietrix of Premier Agency, Ramnagar, Coimbatore. Her husband was the manager of the Coimbatore branch of the petitioner-company. In November, 1988, large scale defalcation committed by one Sethuraman was detected by the complainant. On August 23, 1989, when Mrs. Asha Bagree went to Coimbatore, the accused and her husband came for the settlement and the accused issued 19 cheques for a total sum of Rs. 5,48,000 drawn on the Syndicate Bank in favour of the complainant-company. The c...
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Principal Labour C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ201Mad; (1991)IIMLJ5
ORDERKanagaraj, J.1. The writ-petitioner challenges the validity of the award made by the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No. 571 of 1989, dated December 14, 1990. The charge against the second respondent who is the Typewriter Mechanic, in the petitioner-company in the domestic enquiry was that he submitted false claims. It is alleged that he had not visited certain customers nor serviced their machines but he had claimed conveyance and lunch allowance. The Labour Court, to whom the dispute was ultimately referred has substantially found that the charges had been established. However the Labour Court ultimately held that the back-wages alone worked out of Rs. 97,500 and, if the petitioner is deprived of the same, it would be sufficient punishment. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the second respondent without back-wages. 2. I admitted the writ petition and granted an interim order of stay on January 22, 1991. The second respondent worker has...
Spencer International Hotels Ltd. and Others Vs. Asst. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ878Mad
ORDER1. Since the parties to the above proceedings are one and the same and the issues arising for consideration overlap and common submissions have been made, they are dealt with together. 2. W.P. 15637 of 1988 has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents not to take any steps against the petitioner for the alleged violation and non-implementation of the decision dated October 31, 1988 of Thiru. S. Rajasubramanian, formerly Commissioner of Labour and now Sub-Collector, Tindivanam as the said decision cannot be equated to an 'Award' in pursuance of the letter dated December 2, 1988. 3. W.P. 15638 of 1988 has been filed for the issue of a writ of declaration, declaring that the communication dated October 31, 1988 from Thiru. S. Rajasubramanian formerly Commissioner of Labour, Madras, now Sub-Collector, Tindivanam cannot be equated to an 'Award' under the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Rules framed thereunder and consequently to hold th...
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. the Presiding Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ530
ORDERMishra, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has referred a question whether and if all the three cnditions referred to by the Supreme Court and as adumbrated in Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (inserted therein by Central Act 46 of 1982) are satisfied, is it mandatory for the management to pay last drawn wages, or has the Court still a discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into the question and award a lesser amount than the exact quantum of last drawn wages?2. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1009 of 1988 (order dated 2.5.1989) has said,All these contentions are irrelevant when this statutory right crystallises on the refusal by a Management to reinstate a worker as ordered by a Labour Court, and if the validity of the said award is pending disposal either in the High Court or in the Supreme Court. Once the said precondition comes into existence, the liability to pay under Section 17-B is foisted on the Management. This ...
Concept Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1991
Reported in: 1994LC155(Madras); 1992(58)ELT6(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 5367/89 pending on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. On a private complaint preferred by the respondent, who is the Drugs Inspector, Perambur Range, Madras, the petitioners are being prosecuted in the aforestated calender case, for having contravened the provisions of Section 18(1)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 27(d) of the same Act. A perusal of the complaint discloses, that the first petitioner is the drug manufacturing firm at Bombay, while petitioners 2 and 3 are the Directors of the said firm. The fourth petitioner is the person in-charge of the conduct of the business of the first petitioner at Bombay, while the fifth petitioner is the person in charge of the Madras branch of the first petitioner, for the conduct of day-to-day business. On 18-11-1987, the then Drugs Inspector drew samples of Comoxyl dry syrup Amoxycillin, manufactured by the first petitioner, from the Medica...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »