Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ236Mad
ORDER1. This petition is for quashing the order dated October 31, 1987 of the respondent. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed by the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board on January 20, 1983, November 9, 1981, October 9, 1984 and May 5, 1981 respectively. They were posted at Vettavalam Combined Water Supply Scheme. The petitioners working in the Combined Water Supply Scheme were on the time scale. After the Vettavalam Combined Water Supply Scheme came to an end, the scheme was handed over to the Vettavalam Town Panchayat with effect from October 9, 1984. At the time of handing over the scheme to the Panchayat the petitioners were transferred to the service of the respondent. After the transfer the petitioners were paid the regular scale. When Fourth Pay Commission report was published a new scale was introduced in 1987. The petitioners were given the new scale. In the service registers necessary entries were also made with reference to the time scale as per the Fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ164Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is for writ, of certiorari to quash the orders in Claim petition No. 369 of 1984 dated February 4, 1986 on the file of the first respondent. 2. The petitioner is Natham Co-operative Agricultural Bank registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The Second respondent was working as clerk-cashier. He was suspended on May, 23. 1983 for grave irregularities involving criminal misappropriation and breach of trust. Further, the financing bank viz. Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank, on enquiries reported that the second respondent had acted against the interests of the Bank and on receipt of the said report, the petitioner made further verification of the bank report and issued charge memos on July 27, 1984 and August 8, 1984. The second respondent submitted his explanations on December 20, 1984 and December 26, 1984. The explanations were submitted after the notice for the enquiry was served on the second respondent f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ485Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is for certionarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated November 13, 1986 in C.P. Nos. 696 of 1984, and 58 & 59 of 1985 and to direct reinstatement of the petitioners in the second respondent factory. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows : Petitioners 1 to 3 herein raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent herein. It was heard by the Second Additional Labour Court in I.D. No. 191 of 1981. The Labour Court adjudicated in favour of the first petitioner ordering reinstatement. Similarly, the second petitioner raised industrial dispute, I.D. No. 410 of 1981. In the said petition also it was held that the termination of the services was not justified. Hence, declared continuance of service with backwages and other attendant benefits. With reference to the third petitioner also in I.D. No. 411 of 1981, the same order was passed. Thereafter, the petitioners sent registered notice to the second respondent claiming the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(2)CTC511
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. This petition is to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge) Cuddalore in MACTOP No. 264 of 1990. In the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the relevant papers relating to the O.P. and the certified copies of the judgment and decree were forwarded to the Regional Office at Madras for scrutiny by the legal department of the petitioner insurance company to decide on the question of advisability of filing appeal. The concerned Managers, who have to take a decision, were not readily available inasmuch as they had been deputed to attend certain policy matters of importance. As such, the decision could not be taken for filing an appeal within the period of limitation. Moreover, in a Government Undertaking like the petitioner, administrative delay cannot be avoided for more reasons than one.2. It is clear that the Tribunal has passed the award on 22-2-1995 and the certified ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(2)CTC700
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The unsuccessful tenants are the petitioners in these two civil revision petitions, which were filed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority/Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in R.C.A. Nos. 173 and 174 of 1987 dated 27.2.1989 fixing the fair rent to the premises of the petitioners herein at Rs. 760 per month in both the appeals, and modifying the order of the Rent Controller/9th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in R.CO.P. Nos. 3384 and 3467 of 1984, who fixed the fair rent at Rs. 816 and Rs. 814 respectively.2. The respondent/landlady is the owner of the shops in question viz., Old Door No. 94, New Door No. 144, Royapettah High Road and Old Door No. 64/1 and new Door No. 181, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Madras 4. She filed petitions for fixation of fair rent. The tenants were paying rent ranging from Rs. 75 to Rs. 90 per month per shop. It was the contention of the landlady that these shops are situated in a very important commercial loca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ294
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.9.1996 rejecting W.P. No. 12469 of 1996, in which the petitioner purporting to espouse the public cause, has challenged the Constitutionality of Sees. 11,20 and 32 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 'insofar as the said provisions provide reservation on the basis of 1991 census without preceded by a legislative delimitation order and the reservation beyond 2000 as ultra vires of Article 230 read with Articles 81, 82 and 170 of the Constitution.'2. The Panchayats Act insofar as it relates to reservation, has been enacted pursuant to Part VIII of the Constitution read with the exclusive power of the State under Entry 5, List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Section 1 of the Act deals with reservation of seats for Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes in Village Panchayats and it reads thus:11(1) Seats shall be reserved for the persons belong...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(91)ELT41(Mad)
ORDER1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the respondents culminated in Order No. 187/96, dated 24-6-1996 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras Second respondent herein in Application No. E/Stay/414/96/MAS and to quash the said order. 2. The petitioner herein M/s. Madura Coats Ltd., is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Manager, Excise and Transport has filed an affidavit in support of the Writ Petition. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner company is a leading manufacturer of Textiles in India. The tyre cord Fabrics of high Tenacity Yarns are used only in the manufacture of tyres. The high tenacity yarns are not manufactured in India and the same are imported by the Tyre manufactures. Since the tyre manu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ683Mad
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. 1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the show cause notices dated September 12, 1994, bearing No. MDUC SSO 10697/F7 VM and No. MDUC SSO 10694/F7 VM issued by the Deputy General Manager of Canara Bank, to the petitioner. The show cause notices read as follows : REF : MDUC SSO 10697/F7 VMSub : Criminal Case No. 3/86 before the 1 Additional Sessions Court, Madurai. We note that you have been convicted by the Court for the offences under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. The details of sentence passed by the Court are furnished as under : Section 120-B of IPC One year Rigorous imprisonment (RI) Section 420 IPC (69 counts) Three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- fine for each count (69 x 1000 = 69,000/-) in default to undergo one year RI. Section 477A of IPC (11 counts) Three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine for each count (11 x 1000 = 11,000/-) in default to unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(2)CTC388; (1996)IIMLJ609
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsel, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The respondents herein filed the suit O.S.899 of 85 on the file of the District Munsif Court,Salem for specific performance of the suit agreement. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 19.7.90. On 27.7.90 the petitioners filed I.A. 1065 of 90 for setting aside the ex parte decree stating that the Advocate did not inform the hearing date and hence they could not attend the court on that date. The said application was opposed by the respondents by just denying the averments made in the affidavit and further contended that Order 9, Rule 13 has no application, since the suit has been decreed on merits.2. The trial court by its order dated 6.3.92 dismissed the said application, without considering the reason given by the petitioners for their absence on the hearing date. The petitioners herein filed an appeal in C.M.A.9 of 1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)2MLJ645
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. This relief sought for in the writ petition is to quash the proceedings No. 2589/88/B/LA of the first respondent dated 25.11.1994 by a writ of certiorari.2. The facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:The father of the petitioner Govindarasu, claiming to be a tenant in respect of the land in R.S.No. 41/1, Old Survey No. 141, situate at Ariyankuppam village, Pondicherry, filed Writ Petition No. 13594 of 1986 questioning the validity of the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the said land. He died on 7.6.1991. On his death the petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The said writ petition was dismissed. Writ Appeal No. 500 of 1994 challenging the order passed in the writ petition was also dismissed. During the pendency of the proceedings the father of the petitioner having died, the petitioner contained the proceedings. He had filed special leave peti...
Tag this Judgment!