Chennai Court July 1997 Judgments
The Management of Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, Coimbatore Vs. the Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1997
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR889]; (1997)IIMLJ617
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of Y. Venkatachalam, J., dated 4.12.1995 in W.P. No. 10503 of 1985, reversing the order passed by the 1st respondent/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 62 of 1983 awarding Rs. 3,000/- by way of compensation in lieu of dismissal from service. The management is the appellant. 2. The appellant was engaged in the production of textile spinning machinery. It employs about 3,000 workmen. The workmen have to work in two shifts. The various machines are operated at a very high speed and if they remain unattended, it may pose a very risk to the persons nearby as well as the machines. Having regard to the nature of machine operations and the risk factor involved, the workmen are required to maintain a constant vigil and also remain near their work place during the shift hours. Any workman who is found sleeping while on duty and who is away from his working place is invariably awarded the punishment o...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachala Mudaliar Trust, by Its Managing Trustee N. Ramaswamy Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ419
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 9375 of 1984. The said writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 3.7.1992 by the learned single Judge, aggrieved by which, this appeal is filed.2. The appellant is a Trust. The second respondent herein initiated proceedings for assessing the lands to an extent of 1.75 acres in Survey Nos. 537/5 and 538/4 for levying tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act'). The appellant was directed to appear for an enquiry on 23.5.1983. He appeared on that date and presented a petition on 24.5.1983 requesting for a week's time. Time was granted till 5.6.1983 on which date he did not turn up.3. The second respondent passed an order holding that the said lands were liable for assessment from 1381 fasli onwards as the Adangal extracts from Fasli years 1381 to 1390 indicated that the lands were lying waste and not cultivated. The appellant took up the matter in revision bef...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.R. Durgamba
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR96(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer had not validly assumed jurisdiction under section 147(a) of the Act ?' 2. The Income-tax Officer had taken action under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in order to bring to assessment a sum of Rs. 3,423 granted to the assessee as interest under section 214 of the Act. The assessee has been granted this interest. For the assessment year 1973-74, the interest was allowed on November 21, 1974. This interest of Rs. 3,423 was not returned by the assessee for the assessment year in question in the original assessment proceedings. After the original assessment proceedings were completed, but before action was initiated under section 147...
Tag this Judgment!Pichai Ammal Vs. the District Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ258
M.S.B. Liberhan, C.J.1. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends, that since the case was remanded by the Appellate Authority, the revisional authority could not have decided the case on merits, as the order under revision was one of remand. In case the revisional authority found that the remand order suffers from illegality or material irregularity, he was bound to remand the case to the appellate authority for decision on merits without deciding the case him-self on merits. Learned Counsel for the appellant re-lied upon a decision of this Court in Kaluvaroya Pillai v. Ganesa Pandithan : AIR1969Mad248 , by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Right Act reads thus:Revision: The District Collector or such officer as may be specified by the Government in this behalf may, of his own motion, or, on the application of a party, call for and examine the record of any Record Officer or appellate authority within his jurisdic...
Tag this Judgment!Annapoorni Ammal and ors. Vs. Appu Alias V.V. Venkateswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ716
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 163 of 1979, on the file of Sub Court, Thanjavur, are the revision petitioners.2. Predecessor of the petitioners, late V.V. Swaminathan filed the above suit for partition. The matter was settled and a compromise was entered into between the parties. As per paragraph 3 of the compromise, it was agreed that since the plaintiffs were allotted properties of a greater value, they should pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the defendant. The said amount was agreed to be paid in instalments of Rs. 1,000 permensem. The amount so paid will also carry interest at 6% per annum. The compromise was recorded and thereafter the original plaintiff died. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the compromise, the amounts were paid to the respondent. From the accounting year 1979-80 to 1985-1986, every month, amount was paid and the same is reflected in the accounts which are maintained by them. It is said that the receipt of the amount is also...
Tag this Judgment!Adimoolan Mudaliar Vs. P.L. Unnamalai Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ533
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. This appeal is by a person, who claims to be in possession of the property in question which is a subject-matter of the decree passed by this Court in C.S. No. 49 of 1975 which is in execution now, in E.P. No. 71 of 1993, against the order dated 23.12.1996 made by the learned single Judge in Application No. 4325 of 1996 in the said Execution Petition.2. Briefly stated, the facts and events which are considered necessary and relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are the following:C.S. No. 49 of 1975 was filed by the decree-holder for setting aside the sale deed dated 20.5.1965 in respect of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession. Though the said suit was dismissed by the learned single Judge on original side, it was reversed by the Division Bench in O.S.A. No. 93 of 1979 and the sale deed dated 20.5.1965 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was held void, and further the defendants were directed to deliver possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and Others Vs. Kumaragurubara Swamig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad386
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Bakthavatsalam, J. in W.P. No. 19833/93 dated 19-11-1993 holding that the 1st respondent College is entitled to the rights under Art. 30 of the Constitution of India and that the question whether SaivaSiddhanta is a religion need not bedecided. This appeal is filed by the Registrar. Vice-Chancellor and the Controller of Examinations of Manonamaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli. The 1st respondent College, by virtue of Section 1 of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act stands affiliated to the appellant-University. The University has been concerned with the maintenance of the academic standards. According to the University, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case College receiving 100% grant from the Government, will have to make admissions on the basis of merit subject to the rule of reservation alone. It is their case that several complaints were received by the University from...
Tag this Judgment!D. Sathish Vs. Tahsildar, Sirkali Taluka and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC215
ORDERJudgement pronounced by C. Shivappa, J.1. The appellant had challenged the order of the learned single judge, dated 20.6.1994, passed in W.P.No.10440 of 1994. In the writ petition, the appellant herein challenged the order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that no prior notice was issued under Section 7 of the Act.2. It is contended in this Appeal that the finding of the learned single judge that 'though the impugned notice purports to be a notice under Section 6 of the Act, in substance, it is really a notice under Section 7 of the Act' is wrong.3. Before taking proceedings under Section 6, the Collector of Tahsildar, or Deputy Tahsildar, or Revenue Inspector, or any authorised officer or any other officer specified by the State Government in that behalf shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be an unauthorised occupant, of a land, a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on h...
Tag this Judgment!Mettur Chemicals Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam, Mettur Vs. Chemplast Sanmar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ963Mad
ORDER1. The above writ petitions are filed by Mettw Chemicals Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam and Chemplast Employees Union, Mettur Dam for a relief of mandamus directing the respondent not to discontinue the existing benefits, namely regular fixed monthly payment, covered by the settlement dated November 27, 1992 without giving notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The same may be disposed of by the following common order. 2. The case of the petitioner Union is that the respondent company has been making enormous profits and the workmen are outside the purview of the payment of Bonus Act. Hence, the management offered a fixed monthly payment to the workmen who were outside the purview of Payment of Bonus Act. In those circumstances, a settlement dated November 27, 1992 under Section 18(1) of the Act between the respondent and the various unions, providing for fixed monthly payment of 56.5 per cent of wages of April, 1992 every mo...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mujibulla Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ603Mad
ORDER1. By consent of all the parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Against the order of transfer transferring the petitioner from Salem Steel Plant to Bokaro Steel Plant, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the said order on various grounds. 2. The petitioner joined service in 1970 as Security-cum-Movement Officer in Thungabathra Steel Products, Thungabathra Dam, Bellary District, Karnataka. During the year 1972 the petitioner was absorbed in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter called as 'CISF') as Sub-Inspector. In 1978 he was promoted as Inspector and in 1987 as Assistant Commandant. In 1994 he was promoted as Deputy Commandant and on promotion he was posted as Deputy Commandant at IB Reserve Battalion, CISF, Ranchi, Bihar. In March 1996, he was transferred to Salem and posted as Deputy Commandant at the Salem Steel Plant. Suddenly, on February 22, 1997 the petitioner received a telex message from the second respondent which i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »