Chennai Court September 1994 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.
Muruga Home Industries Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1994
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ598Mad
S.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. In these batch of writ petitions, the managements of beedi industries, Tamil Nadu, have challenged the impugned notification issued by the first respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of its powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 and Sub-section (1) (b), Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, revising the minimum wages of the Schedule, Part I, entry 3, relating to employment in any tobacco (including beedi making) manufactory, in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government had fixed the minimum wages for employment in beedi making in April, 1991. See (1991 78 IF 1st) 180.), as follows:SCHEDULESl. NoClass of workBasic Rates of wages(1)(2)(3)(Rs.)1.For rolling 1,000 jadi beedisirrespective of size.13.252.For rolling 1,000 Sada beedis irrespective of size. (including mukkudal type of beedis)13.05The impugned notification (1993) 82 IFJ (st) 253 has revised the minimum wages as follows:Sl. NoClass of workMinimum ...
Andal Ammal and ors. Vs. V. Susheela
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ188
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatore permitting for the amendment of the plaint.2. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration that she is entitled to use the suit passage. She claimed only an easementary right in the property describing the same as the property of the corporation. The suit has been dismissed by the trial court and the appeal is now pending before the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. At this stage the petitioner filed a petition to amend the plaint for easement by prescription on the ground that she is enjoying the passage from 1927 onwards and also for demolition of the wall said to have been put up subsequent to the filing of the suit,3. The defendants contested this petition on the ground that as the suit was based on easement of necessity and the same has been rejected by the trial court now the plaintiff should not be allowed to plead for the ease...
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Deciding Authority and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3380
ORDER1. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Tamizhaga Nallatchi Iyakkam. He is also a former Union Cabinet Minister for Commerce, Law and Justice. He is a well-known figure in politics. He has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to grant necessary sanction for prosecuting the second respondent under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in compliance with his request made on 2-11-1993. The first respondent is described as 'the Deciding Authority and his Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Mardas.' The second respondent is the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the third respondent is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary to Government. When the writ petition came up for admission on 29-4-1994, I entertained a doubt regarding its maintainability. Therefore, I ordered notice of motion returnable by 14-6-1994. All the respondents are now represented by counsel and coun...
M. Subramaniam Vs. P. Rathinakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3098
ORDER1. Petitioner is the sole accused in S.T.C. No. 1881 of 1991, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam. He is being prosecuted for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on a private complaint initiated by the respondent. 2. In this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of process of Court, two grounds were urged by petitioner's counsel. The first ground was that the allegations in the complaint are so vague, that cognizance could not have been taken by the trial Magistrate. The second ground was that endorsement by the Banker 'refer to drawer' cannot be held to be either due to insufficiency of funds in the accounts to honour the cheque, or because the amount shown in the cheque exceeded the arrangement and hence it has to be necessarily held that no offence under Section 138 of ...
Muthukrishnan and Another Vs. Station House Officer, Town Police Stati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2997
ORDER1. Petitioners have been shown as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in Order No. 38 of 1993 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal, while the second respondent has been shown as opposite party No. 1 in the same proceeding. First respondent, Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Karaikal, has been shown as petitioner, who had chosen to initiate the impugned proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. Learned Executive Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. by passing a preliminary order on 3-6-1993. Disputes between parties relate to a temple land and the super-structure thereon. 2. In this petition preferred under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the pending proceeding, as not maintainable and an abuse of process of Court, only one ground was urged by petitioner's counsel. He submitted that after noting down the information received, learned Executive Magistrate has stated in the preliminary order that he was satisfied that there w...
Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Excise, Ranipet
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: 1994(48)ECC79; 1994(74)ELT501(Mad)
ORDER1. This is a writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the second respondent passed in A. No. 5/94 (Order in Appeal No. 14 of 1994), dated 8-4-1994, setting aside the order of the first respondent passed in C. No. IV/60/50/91 (Order in Appeal No. 6 of 1993), dated 22-4-1993. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the writ petition are : The petitioners are manufacturers of Phthalic Anhydride and Maleic Anhydride under Chapter 2917.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The goods of the petitioners fall under the Modvat Scheme introduced with effect from 1st March, 1986 with a view to remove the cascading effect of duty payment on final products. The petitioners declared Marlotherm falling under Chapter 3823 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as an input and availed duty credit for utilisation of the same against Phthalic Anhydride and Maleic Anhydride. A show cause notice came to be issued to the first respondent on 17-1-1991 i...
Panneer @ Panneeraselvam Vs. Smt. Sarasu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC180
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. Petitioner has been shown as member of B Party in M.C. No. 24 of 1993 on the file of sub-Divisional Magistrate Mayiladuthurai, wherein the first respondent has been shown as member of A party.2. Learned Executive Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 147, Cr.P.C. by passing a preliminary order on 16.4.1993, wherein he has stated about likelihood of breach of peace due to dispute between parties regarding a pathway/cart-track. On appearance of parties, learned Executive Magistrate chose do examine witnesses and peruse written statements filed by the parties. Ultimately, he passed a final order under Section 147(3) Cr. P.C. on 26.7.1993 directing B party to restore the path way, which had been blocked by his within three months prior to the passing of the preliminary order. 'B' party was also directed to remove immediately, if any permanent construction had been made by him, on this pathway.3. It is this final order which stands challenged before me in thi...
Hemachandra Reddy Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Civil I and General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ80
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.9.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 9566 of 1993. W.P. No. 9566 Of 1993 was heard along with several other connected writ petition's and a common order was passed by the leaned single Judge. All the writ petitions were allowed in the following terms:2. the point now taken by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is covered by a decision in W.P. Nos.9196 and 9197 of 1992 dated 17th June. 1993 in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited v. P.R. Govindarajuiu and 2 Ors. (1993) 2 L.W. 37. Following the said decision, 1 quash the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in the respective O.Ps. ahd remit the matter to the learned Subordinate Judge for fresh disposal after giving notice to the requisitioning body and other interested persons. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the awards of the Subordinate Judge passed in all the L.A.O.Ps. are illegal, ab initio void and unenforceable on th...
Vijayan Alias Mathew Vijayakumar Vs. Bhanusundari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad166
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. This matter comes for confirmation of decree, declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, which took place on 4-2-1987 as null and void. 2. In the original petition the petitioner has stated that after the marriage was performed on 4.-2-1987, there was no sexual relationship between him and the respondent. On 8-2-1987, she agreed for consummation, but the petitioner was shocked to find that she was affected by leucoderma and there was no consummation on that day also. When he questioned her, the respondent said that her parents would have disclosed that fact priorto the marriage. The respondent left the house with all her belongings. She sent a notice on 11-8-1988 through a lawyer to the petitioner informing him that a female child was born to her on 6-11-1987 and called upon the petitioner to lead marital life along with her. The petitioner sent a reply stating that he had no sexual relationship with her and he could not be made responsible...
A. Karunanidhi Vs. the Secretary and Correspondent, Poompuhar College
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ25
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the file of the respondent pertaining to the proceedings in reference Na.Ka. No. 65/B1/94, quash the order dated 28.6.1994 and consequently direct the respondent to continue the petitioner in service till 31.5.1995.2. The facts briefly stated leading to this writ petition are the following:The petitioner was denied the right of re-employment till the end of the academic year, i. e. 31.5.1995 contrary to the provisions of law. Poompuhar College, Melaiyur, Negai Quaide Millet District is a private college within the meaning of Section 2(8) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short refer to 'the Act'). The said college is run by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (H.R. & C.E.). As per Section 11 of the Act, the administration of the college vests with the College Committee. The sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »