Chennai Court February 1996 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.
Measureall Engineering and Co. (P) Ltd., and ors. Vs. Employees' State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ534Mad
1. Heard. The only contention that has been dwelt as main plank for the admission of the revisions by the Bar is that the petitioners herein are not the Managin Directors, nor the Managers of the company by name, Measuerall Engineering and Co. (P) Ltd., Coimbatore, and that, therefore, they have not come under the definition of Section 2(17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, which deals with 'principal employer' and which aspect has not at all been considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, while passing the impugned orders on the petitions seeking discharge of the petitioners and also for dropping further proceedings. The above plea was discountenanced by Mr. P. Rajarnanickam, learned Counsel for the respondent, stating that the definition provided under Section 2(17), for 'principal employer' under the Act, is neither wider nor too narrow, but it has spelt out particularly, the persons who are put in charge of the entire administration of the company, viz., the occupier or o...
T.N.E.B. Engineers' Sangam Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ1071Mad
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. W.P. No. 8037 of 1995 relates to the withdrawal of recognition accorded to the petitioners' Trade Union. W.P. Nos. 9847, 10197 and 10198 of 1995 relate to the transfer orders given to the three office bearers of the T.N.E.B. Supervisors Sangam. Since both the matters arose out of the same set of facts all the four petitioners are dealt with together.2. W.P. No. 8037 of 1995 was filed by the General Secretary of the T.N.E.B. Engineers Sangam to quash the order dated May 23, 1995 withdrawing the recognition accorded as Union of Industrial employees of the Board.3. The short facts are as follow:The Petitioners' Union is a body registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Originally there was T.N.E.B. Supervisors Sangam functioning in the respondent Board and the said Union was conferred recognition by the respondent vide order dated February 5, 1970. Subsequently, the name of the Union was changed in 1979 as that of T.N.E.B. Engineers' Sangam. According to the pe...
The Principal, Noorul Islam College of Engineering Vs. the Mononmaniam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC393
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 22.1.1996 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15624 of 1995. At the stage of admission 1st respondent University is represented through learned counsel Shri Chandru and learned Special Government Pleader for Education takes notice for 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent is also represented through a counsel.2. In the writ petition, the order dated 13th October, 1995 passed by the Principal, Noorul Islam College of Engineering was challenged. Learned single Judge has issued the following directions in the light of the provisions contained in Regulation 9(c) of Chapter 17 of the Statutes of the University:-'In the result, I pass the following order: The first respondent is directed to intimate the university about the impugned order in terms of Regulation 9(c) referred to above, with the reasons and connected records within a period of two weeks from today. The second respondent University in terms of the s...
Vs. M. Ranka, Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC529
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. When W.A. No. 1360 of 1995 was being heard by this Court, it was pointed out by the Court that the original records in the case were giving a different picture from what was mentioned by the counsel for the appellant in his opening arguments. Counsel raised his voice and shouted at the Court and did not allow the Court to complete the observations which it wanted to make. Hence the Court had to direct the Registry to issue a notice of contempt to the counsel to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. That notice was made returnable on 19.2.1996. Thus, after service of notice the matter came up today.2. Mr. Ranka has filed Sub Application No. 36 of 1996, in which he has prayed for having the charge against him tried by some other Bench in the interest of proper administration of justice. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, he has stated, what according to him, are the correct facts. In paragraph 2, he has set out the duty of an...
Kangan Vs. Kannammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ77
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the first defendant, who failed throughout, against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur, dated 30.11.1981 in A.S. No. 27 of 1981 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur, dated 22.4.1981 in O.S. No. 439 of 1980.2. First respondent- plaintiff filed the suit on a promissory note dated 2.5.1970 said to have been executed by the first defendant- appellant and others for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,900 being the principal amount due. The case of the plaintiff in the trial court was that the first defendant, his father Kulandaivelu and one Kulandai Servai jointly executed the promissory note in question forasum of Rs. 5,000 on 2.5.1970 for valuable consideration received by them, that except the first defendant, the other two persons died in 1974, that defendants 3 and 4 are the heirs of Kulandai Servai, that defendants 1 and 2 are the heirs of Kulandaivelu, that on 9.4.1...
J. Selvaraj Vs. D.K.P. Vardharajan and Other
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4370
ORDER1. Petitioner Selvaraj preferred a private complaint against the respondents before Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, in S.T.R. No. 1933/91 alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34, I.P.C. First respondent herein was shown as A-2, while the second respondent was arrayed as A-1. The sum and substance of the complaint as can be discerned from the averments made, is that on 2-3-1991 at 11 a.m., the complainant (Petitioner) received a letter dated 26-7-1991 from the second respondent herein. Since the complainant had some eye problem, the asked his friend A. Gopal cited as witness No. 2 in the complaint, to read the contents of the said letter. The complainant was shocked and surprised to note the imputations allegedly made against him by the first respondent herein in the presence of the second respondent. The contents of the letter show that the first respondent herein had stated that the complainant was an international fr...
Valliammal Vs. the State Represented by the Inspector of Police and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2019
ORDER1. The revision has been filed by the petitioner-Valliammal against the order passed in Crl. Appeal No. 50 of 1988 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. Originally, the petitioner has filed an application in Crl.M.P. No. 1207/79 in C.C. No. 5669/78 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, under Section 452 Cr.P.C. for return of M.O. 3 (series) alone (Rs. 4,500/-) to the petitioner. By mistake, the Magistrate has passed an order directing the complainant 2nd respondent to deposit all the M. Os. (MO. 1 to MO. 9) before the Court. Against this order the complainant/second respondent has filed an appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 50 of 1988 on the file of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, which was heard and held that the Magistrate need not insist for production of all the properties and it may direct for production of M.O. 3 (series) alone as prayed for by the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner has filed this revision, st...
R. Sundari Vs. Deputy Chairman, Madras Dock Labour Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ145Mad; (1996)IMLJ610
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to implement the Office Memorandum No. 14014/10/80 Estt.(D) dated March 18, 1982 by Government of India for the employment of the petitioner. 2. Heard Ms. B. Yamini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Notice of Motion was ordered on April 24, 1995. On service of notice the respondent entered appearance through M/s. Aiyar and Dolia and also filed counter affidavit, in the main Writ Petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is admitted and by consent of both the parties the same is taken up for final hearing. 3(a). The impugned Office memorandum No. 14014/10/80-Estt.(D) dated March 18, 1982 reads as follows : '1. The undersigned is directed to invite attention to para 6 of the revised instructions on the above subject, circulated vide this Department's O.M. No. 14014/1/77-Estt.(D) dated November 25, 197...
S. Thiraviyam Ammal Vs. Vellayan and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC445
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O.S. No. 412 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Thirumalai Servai as his ancestral property .He sold it to the plaintiff on 10.9.1979 for a sum of Rs. 4,800 under Exhibit A.1. In the said property, which is a vacant site measuring 120' east-west, 100' north- south, the plaintiff put up a thatched shed measuring 20 feet cat-west and 10 feet north-south, in the north eastern corner of it. She however, contended that she also is enjoying it by keeping hay ricks and tethering cattle thereon and before her, the predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and thus the plaintiff has acquired prescriptive title to it. The defendants who arc having no right or possession or enjoyment over the suit property are threatening to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possess...
Senniappa Nadar Vs. T.R. Sarojini Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC22; (1996)IIMLJ500
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondents filed O.S. No. 505 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore for recovery of possession. The plaint averments are as follows:The first plaintiff is the wife of the second plaintiff. The suit property belongs to the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff leased the right to collect the usufructs of the coconut trees in the suit property to the defendant, on an annual lease amount of Rs. 3,100. The defendant had not paid the lease amount from Karthigai, 1973 and a suit was filed for the recovery of lease amount. The defendant is only a licensee in respect of the land. The plaintiff's issued a notice calling upon the defendant to vacate the property and hand over the possession. The defendant sent a reply with incorrect allegations stating that he is a cultivating tenant. With these averments, the plaintiff filed the present suit.2. The defendant in his written statement as well as in the additio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »