Chennai Court June 1992 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.M. Balasubramaniam and anr. Vs. the Management of K. Singaram Pillai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ81
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the employees of the first respondent/Management challenging the award passed by the second respondent and praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the award dated 4.11.1978 and quashing the same in so far as it fails to grant the normal relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service, but only grants the relief of payment of compensation to the petitioners.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated as follows : - Both the petitioners were employed as conductors in the respondent/transport business. The first petitioner has put in 5 years of service and the 2nd respondent has put in 10 years of service. A charge-memo dated 31.8.1976 was issued to the first petitioner by the management, namely, the first respondent herein, to the effect that he did not attend to his duties on the evening of 19.8.1976 and 20.8.1976, 2....
Bharat Pulverising Mills Ltd. Vs. the Joint Director of Agriculture (i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ511
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of insecticides. The Agricultural Officer (Quality Control) of the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Papanasam, took a sample of Plant Protection Chemical Monocrotophos 35% from the shop of the petitioner's dealer located at No. 37, Gandhi Road, Kumbakonam. Only one sample of the insecticides was taken and sent to the Assistant Agricultural Chemist, Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Aduthurai, for analysis and the Assistant Agricultural Chemist, Aduthurai, submitted his report stating that the contents showed 238 ml. as against 250 ml. declared on the label and his report disclosed that it was 'misbranded'. Based on this report, the first respondent herein, passed the order appealed against, directing the suspension of the manufacturing licence No. 9/1972 of the petitioner for a period of 10 days from 16.12.1990 to 25.12.1990. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority who...
V.K. Veeraraghava Reddiar Vs. Urudu Madarssa (Arabic School) and Anoth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad185; (1993)IMLJ296
ORDER1. The Second Respondent in the eviction petition is the Petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under S. 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Urudu Madarssa (Arabic School) represented by its Secretary is the owner of the petition premises. The First Respondent in the eviction petition is the tenant in respect of the shop No. 1 in Madarassa Building Shopping Complex, Shanmugham Road, Tambaram. The case of the landlord is as under :--The petition premises was let out to the first Respondent in the year 1971. The building is a non-residential one and the tenancy is monthly tenancy. Originally the rent was at Rs. 80/-per month, later on it was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month and at present the rent is at Rs. 120/- per month. The First Respondent paid an advance of Rs. 8,000/- and this has to be adjusted from a portion of the monthly rent payable by the tenant. Thus, at present out ...
T.P.S. Lakshmanan and Others Vs. Sree Balraj Paper and Straw Board Mil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1992
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas760(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are unsettled creditors, under sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, to wind up the respondent/company and to appoint the official liquidator to take charge of the affairs of the company and for other reliefs. 2. The short facts which are relevant are as under : The respondent is a private limited company incorporated on February 8, 1967, under the provisions of the Companies Act. The registered office of the company is situate at Sowdambal Street, Keelakottai, Chinnalapatti in Madurai district. The main object of the company was to carry on the business of manufacture of various types of paper and paper products. The first petitioner, T. P. S. Lakshmanan, was the managing director of the company till June, 1988. According to him, he has advanced a sum of Rs. 6,75,000 to the company during the period from November 21, 1987, to January 30, 1988, for its business. The above sum ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kannammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1992
Reported in: II(1995)ACC229
Ratnam, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited, against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Dharapuram, in M.C.O.P. No. 53 of 1984. Respondents 1 to 3, are the wife, son and daughter, respectively of one Duraisami, who met with an accident while driving his Matador Van TDC 8362 near Thalavoi Pattinam on Udumalpet-Dharapuram road and lost his life.2. In the claim petition filed by the respondents, against the appellant, they had stated that Duraisami, the owner-cum-driver of the van met with an accident as he was driving the loaded vehicle and sustained head injuries and died. It was also further stated that the accident was not due to the negligence of the deceased, but as there was rain, the vehicle skidded while negotiating a turn and therefore, there was no negligence or rashness that could be attributed to the driver, who lost his life in that accident. In respect of the death of Duraisami in that accident, the respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›