Chennai Court February 1992 Judgments
Mrs. E.V. Swaminathan Vs. K.M.M.A. Industries and Roadways Private Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas1(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above company petition under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956), with the following prayers : (a) to rectify the register of members of the first respondent-company be deleting the name of the third respondent with refgard to 775 shares standing in the name of the petitioner in the register of members ; (b) to enter the petioners's name in respect of the said 775 equity shares in the registered of members in the place of third respondent ; and (c) to direct the repondents herein to pay the costs of the petition. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition may be set out as follows : The first respondent is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and has its registered office at No. 7-C, Alexandra Road, Tiruchirappalli. The second respondent is the wife of Mr. R.P. David Christian, Yercaud, Salem District. The third respondent is the son of Mr. R.P. David Christian...
Tag this Judgment!Twad Board Employees Union Vs. Twad Board and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ410Mad
ORDERW.P. No. 2558 of 1990 1. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, called TWAD hereinafter, has invoked, this Court's writ jurisdiction against the order (award) of the Additional Labour Court, Madurai, in Industrial Dispute No. 394/85 under which the demand of 27 workmen that they should be made permanent has been declared justified and accordingly ordered. 2. Alleging inter alia that the said 27 employees and ten others were engaged in various jobs under the petitioner and were employed against the sanctioned posts accorded for maintaining, a certain scheme of work for periods for a number of years, yet they were treated as purely temporary employees, the workmen raised an industrial dispute seeking a declaration that they were permanent employees and that they should accordingly be absorbed on permanent basis TWAD Board entered appearance and maintained that they were temporary/casual employees who can be made permanent only by the Managing Director of the Board in accordance...
Tag this Judgment!R. Anita Marginic Vs. R. Annadurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC37; (1992)IIMLJ11
Lakshmanan, J.1. The petition has been filed under Sections 18 and 19 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to pass a decree and judgment declaring that the alleged marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is null and void and for costs.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition may be set out as follows: The petitioner is now aged about 19 years, her date of birth being 19.4.1972 as per the transfer certificate marked as Ex. P-3. She is the daughter of Mr. J. Robby and Mrs. Kethsi Bai. Admittedly they are born Christian and members of C.S.I. Church, Mambalam-Vide Ex. P-1 certificate issued by the C.S.I. Church. The petitioner was at times assisting her father. Her maternal aunt Suganthi, an unmarried lady employed as a teacher in Kilpauk used to visit the house often. She took a short term hand loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the petitioner promising repayment in seven days. When she did not repay the amount and the petitioner's father scolded her. The petitioner insisted her maternal...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Dunlop India Ltd. and ors. Vs. S.G. Krishnakuma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ115
Mishra, J.1. This is a 'most pathetic case' to borrow the words of the learned trial Judge, where a dutiful servant, who was employed as senior charge-hand, Card No. 450 in the Electrical Department of the factory of the first defendant-respondent in O.S.A No. 180 of 1981 and appellant in O.S.A. No. 84 of 1981, had a fatal fall while attending to his duty and where consequently his widow and two children moved the court for compensation.2. On 10.10.1970, at about 6.45 p.m. while Gopalakrishnamurthy was attending to his duty, he had a fatal fall. He sustained injuries to his brain and spine solely on account of the accident. He died on account of the injuries sustained on account of the fall while on duty, at about 10.30 p.m. on 10.10.1970. He was the only bread earner for the widow, the first plaintiff, and the two young children, Plaintiffs 2 and 3. He died at the age of 34 years, In the ordinary course he would have superannuated only on attaining the age of 55 years. There has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Sriramulu Naidu and ors. Vs. Yusuf Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ625
Bellie, J.1. The defendants against whom the suit has been decreed for specific performance of an agreement to sell are the appellants.2. The plaintiffs' case is that they are the heirs of one Abdul Razaak. He owned the suit properties and on 1.9.1958 he sold the same for a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the two defendants who are father and son. They on the same day i.e., on 1.9.1958 executed an agreement to re-convey the property to Abdul Razaak after 1.9.1975. Abdul Razaak died. His heirs-plaintiffs, on 19.6.1979 issued a notice to the defendants calling upon them to execute a sale deed but they sent a reply raisiag false contentions. The plaintiffs have been always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the defendants evaded. Therefore the suit.3. The defendants in their written statement denied that they executed any agreement to reconvey the properly to Abdul Razaak. They further contended that the suit is barred by limitation.4.The trial court on consideration of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbanna Goundar and Others Vs. S. Ayyaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ341; AIR1993Mad164
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal against the dismissal of their suit O.S. No. 141 of 1977 of the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore the said suit claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- for the defendant-respondent's alleged neligence in placing a live electric wire near the fence of his (respondent's) garden land and the consequent death of their (appellant's) son, Murugan, aged 15 1/2 years due to electrocution thereof.2. The relevant plaint averments may be summarised as follows :-- The defendant is the owner of the garden land situated on the eastern side of the north-south road leading to Ettimadai railway station. There is an electric motor and pumpset in the well in that land. In July, 1975, there were sugarcane crops in the said land. There is a barbed wire fence between the said road and the said land. Near this wire fence, the defendant had also placed a metal wire, which was connected to the electric main of his well. On 31-7-1975 at about 9.00 p.m., the ...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Krishnappa Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3646
ORDER1. This petition unfurls a tale of woe of a person shown as an accused in a crime, not being able to get through the process of trial for over six years, in spite of his having approached this Court thrice, inclusive of this petition, due to the lack of promptitude or even routine action by the investigating police, notwithstanding the fact that the law enforcing agency had been sphereheaded by two orders of this Court, reminding them of their duty to society, and the procedural mandate, they were bound to necessarily follow. 2. Now the facts :- Petitioner Krishnappa is Accused No. 11 in Crime No. 156 of 1986, registered at Keelamangalam Police Station on 30-12-1986, on a first information report preferred by Ramesh, in respect of an occurrence, that had taken place at about 7 a.m. on the same day at Thotta Perur village. The crime was registered under sections 147, 148, and 307, IPC. There appears to be two factions in the village. Due to factional dispute, two occurrences had ta...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Tvs Suzuki Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR971]; (1993)ILLJ855Mad; (1992)IIMLJ432
K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The short question that has to be considered in this case is whether a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Government is valid, when the charter of demands is raised by a minority Union, according to the petitioner-management.2. Mr. A. R. Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner- Management, took me to the various settlements entered into between the recoginsed Union INTUC on February 12, 1988 and May 12, 1989 with regard to certain items on which demands were raised by the 3rd respondent-Union. The dispute in this case is with regard to the bonus for 1987-1988, supply of two uniforms and payment of washing allowance. According to the learned counsel Mr. A.R. Ramanathan, the 3rd respondent Union did not raise the question of bonus in that charter of demands and as such the Government has no jurisdiction to refer the dispute under Section 10 of the Act. With regard to the other two items, the learned counsel contends that they...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Joys Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC339
ORDERBhaktavatsalam, J.1. These writ petitions are preferred by a partnership firm praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of detention of raw materials dated 10.1.1992 and 11.1.1992 in respect of the factory at No. 17, Devaki Ammal Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30 and also in respect of Godown at No. 41, Gajapathy Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30 and also praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding further pursuant to the seizure and detention effected on 10.1.1992 and 11.1.1992.2. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is a Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Toys, Chargeable Lamps, Video Games and Electronic Chiming Devices and Other allied products and has its factory at No. 17, Devaki-Ammal Street. Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30 and Godown at No. 41, Gajapathy Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madras-30, It seems that most of the components required for the manufacture of the above said items are imported by th...
Tag this Judgment!Wren Bennett and Co. India Ltd. Vs. Dr. C.P. Gupta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ410
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 1245 of 1982 on the file of the Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, is the petitioner in these C.R.Ps. The first petitioner and the legal representative of the second petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. are the respondents in these C.R.Ps. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this order as per their nomenclature in R.C.O.P. No. 1245 of 1982. 2. The petitioners filed R.CO.P.No.1245 of 1982 against the respondents under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by (Act 23 of 1973), (hereinafter called the Act) for fixation of fair rent for the petition mentioned building. The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the premises bearing D.No.2, General Patters Road, Madras 2 and the respondent is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 631. Their further case is that taking into consideration the cost of construction of the petition men...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »