Chennai Court July 1997 Judgments
A. Subramanian Vs. Punjab National Bank Represented by Its Chairman-cu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ233
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, the writ appeal is admitted. By consent of both parties, the writ appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ appeal is directed against the order of M.S. Janarthanam, J., dated 29.1.1993 in W.P. No. 5725 of 1984. The petitioner is the appellant.3. The writ petition was filed for the following relief:To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the respondents to fill up 40% of the vacancies in the category of Junior Management Grade (Scale I), by the process of selectivity as per Circular No. 568 dated 25.3.1981 and to consider the case of the appellant for promotion in respect of vacancies in Middle Management Grade (Scale II) which arose subsequent to 16.6.1982.4. The short facts which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellant joined the 1st respondent -- bank on 16.6.1975 as Assistant Agricultural Officer and at ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Through Its Secretary, Education Department and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ299
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The State is the appellant in this appeal. Aggrieved by the order passed by Janardhanam, J., dated 17.3.1994 in W.P. No. 3494 of 1992, this writ appeal has been filed by the State.2. Para. 7 of the Order impugned in this appeal reads thus:7. Various questions now posed for consideration in the present action relatable to sanction of teaching and nonteaching staff, financial aid and rec-ognition relatable to minority institutions came up for consideration before me in the case of Rev. Sr. Margaret Mary v. Government of Tamil Nadu : (1993)2MLJ303 . Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it goes without saying that this writ petition will have to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed as prayed for. there shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case.In this case, there is no dispute that the respondent sangam which is a registered society is a minority institution. The said sangam is running a Girls' High School at...
Tag this Judgment!Thalavaipuram Nadars P.M. Marimuthu Nadar Higher Secondary School, Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC480
ORDER1. The plaintiffs, who are successful before the trial Court, have preferred the present second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court dated 21.7.94 made in A.S.No. 315 of 1993, allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit in its entirety.2. The first plaintiff is Thalavaipuram Nadar's P.M. Marimuthu Nadar Higher Secondary Managing Board, rep. by its Secretary, the second plaintiff is Thalavaipuram P.M.M. Ammayappa Nadar Girls' Higher Secondary School, rep. by its Secretary and Managing Board member and the third plaintiff is Thalavaipuram Nadar's P.M.M. Ammayappa Nadar Elementary School rep. by its Secretary and Managing Board Member and the plaintiffs have jointly instituted the suit O.S.No.9 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, for a declaration that all the three Schools are minority educational institutions and for permanent injunction forbearing the defendants from enforcing the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognise...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. Regional Director, Employees' State I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)IIMLJ514
1. This appeal is against the order passed by the E.S.I. Judge, Tirunelveli dated June 29, 1994 in E.S.I. O.P. No. 7 of 1989 filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter called as the Act). 2. The appellant's case is briefly as follows : The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in getting manufacturing and selling the beedies under the trade name 'Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works'. The petitioner has a branch at Tachanallur. The said premises is not used either for manufacturing or purchasing beedies. It is not a shop or a factory. Power is not used there. Number of workers in that premises is less than 20. The premises is used only for the purpose of storing, collecting and distributing beedies for the purpose of packing under its trade mark. The petitioner has obtained a licence for the premises under the Beedi and Cigar Workers Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. Beedi Workers' Welfare Cess Act and Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Vs. the Thiruvelangadu Agricultural Service ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC147; (1997)IIMLJ283
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The defendant, who has been unsuccessful before the two courts below, is the appellant. The respondent herein is the owner of the suit property, which consists of two godowns and adjacent land, instituted the suit praying for judgment and decree directing the defendant to vacate the suit property after removing the additional unauthorised constructions put up by the defendant and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. The ownership of the suit property is not being disputed. It is also admitted that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property. The defendant has raised controversy in the suit claiming that the tenancy is for agricultural purpose, it is an annual lease and hence the notice of termination issued by the plaintiff is invalid and hence the suit is not maintainable.2. In this Appeal this Court has to decide as to whether the concurrent findings of the two courts below holding that there has been a valid notice of termin...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesan Vs. Subramania Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC478
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the Prl. District Judge, Erode made in A.S.No. 188 of 1982 on 30.4.1983.2. The plaintiff filed a suit on a promissory note contending as follows:-The defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 from Chennimalai Gounder and executed a promissory note in his favour on 23.8.1975 promising to repay the said sum with interest to him or his order on demand Chennimalai Gounder died on 16.5.1979. His wife and parents predeceased him. His daughters died issueless, Ponnuswamy Gounder is the brother of Chennimalai Gounder and Meenakshi Ammal is the sister of Chennimalai Gounder. Ponnuswamy Gounder died in 1977. Therefore Meenakshi Ammal is the only sole surviving heir of Chennimalai Gounder. She as the sole surviving heir inherited all the properties of Chennimalai Gounder inclusive of the suit mentioned debts. On 9.6.1976 Meenakshi Ammal assigned the suit promissory note for valuable consideration in favou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›