Chennai Court August 1997 Judgments
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Southern Motors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR905]; (1998)IIILLJ1295Mad
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated April 26, 1988, passed by the Employees' State Insurance Judge (District Judge). Kaniyakumari, at Nagercoil, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 2 of 1986. 2. The respondent is a proprietorship concern, a motor servicing and repairing unit. The appellant, Inspector, Amal Raj, inspected the premises of the respondent on July 11, 1983, and found that during the period form March 1, 1980 to January 28, 1984 more than 20 persons were working in the respondent concern. Accordingly, proceedings were instituted by the appellant and the appellant passed an order on November 25, 1985, to the effect that the respondent is a factory which is covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act and demanded Rs. 28,830 as contribution. 3. The respondent contended that only 8 or 9 persons were working in the concern and at no time, more than 20 persons were employed. The respondent also contended that the respondent isnot a fac...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Rajan Vs. State by Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC463
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for the second respondent.2. Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 is filed to order an enquiry as required Under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) against respondents for the offences punishable Under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C. Crl.M.P. No. 2274 of 1997 is filed by the petitioner Under Section 389, Cr.P.C. praying to suspend the sentence imposed on him in Sessions Case No. 259 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, and to release him on bail pending disposal of the appeal in Crl.A. No. 20 of 1991 in this Court.3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these two petitions, are the following:The petitioner was an accused in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. On trial he was found guilty Under Section 302, I.P.C. Accordingly he was convicted ...
Tag this Judgment!District Livestock Farm, Abishekapatti, Represented by Its Deputy Dire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ259
Kanakaraj, J.1. The appellant filed W.P. No. 15752 of 1995 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 20.4.1992 made in I.D. No. 70 of 1987 on the file of the second respondent herein. Before the second respondent an issue was raised whether the non-employment of the first respondent was justified or not. In the event of the non-employment being not justified, the Labour Court was called upon to find out the relief to be given to the first respondent. Before the Labour Court an issue raised whether the appellant was an industry and whether the first respondent can at all agitate the matter as an industrial dispute before the second respondent. The Labour Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the definition of the word 'industry', and on the basis of the evidence that the appellant was in fact an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has found that several saleable articles were being manufactured in the appellant institu...
Tag this Judgment!K. N. Sadagopan Vs. T. C. Govindarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ143; 1998(1)CTC48
ORDER1. These are five petitions filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.1067 of 1994, 1071 of 1994, 1070 of 1994, 1069 of l994 and 1068 of 1994 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras and quash the same. 2. All these five Criminal Original Petitions were heard together, and the petitioner and respondent are one and the same in all these five petitions, and the contentions, raised by them are similar, and these five petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order. 3. The material allegations in these five petitions are identical and they are as follows:- The petitioner was in need of capital for his business. The respondent offered to provide financial help and paid rupees three lakhs on 17.5.1993. An agreement was reduced into writing by which Clause-5 the petitioner has to pay Rs. 15,000 per month apart from 50% of the profits. Clause-6 provides that if the petitioner wants to withdraw his amount, he sho...
Tag this Judgment!B. Mangayarkarasi Vs. the District Collector, P.M.T. District Sivagang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC269; (1998)IMLJ278
ORDER1. Heard both the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings Pa.Mu.M/103/96 dated 16.4.97 passed by the respondent and quash the same. 3. The petitioner submits that in the impugned proceedings Pa.Mu.M./103/96 dated 16.4.97, a quarry lease was granted to the petitioner to quarry sand in Survey Nos.133 and 134 measuring a total extent of 4.89.0 hectares, and the same was cancelled on the ground that the bid amount fetched for the said area is not reasonable. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of cancellation of the lease dated 16.4.97 on the ground of principles of natural justice. 4. Per Contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader invited my attention to proviso to Rule 8(6)(b) which runs as follows:- 'Where two or more tender applications are received for an area, the District Collector shall, ordinarily, grant the lease in favour of the highest tender...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Sadagopan Vs. T.C. Govindarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas178(Mad)
S.M. Sidicck, J.1. These are the five petitions filed by the petitioner accused under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C. Nos. 1067 of 1994, 1071 of 1994, 1070 of 1994, 1069 of 1994 and 1068 of 1994 on the file of 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and quash the same. 2. All these five criminal original petitions were heard together, and the petitioner and respondent are one and the same in all these five petitions, and the contentions raised by them are similar, and these five petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order. 3. The material allegations in these five petitions are identical and they are as follows : The petitioner was in need of capital for his business. The respondent offered to provide financial help and paid rupees three lakhs on May 17, 1993. The agreement was reduced into writing by clause 5 of which the petitioner has to pay Rs. 15,000 per month apart from 50 per cent. of the. profits. Clause 6 provides t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Govindaraj Vs. AshwIn Barai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas236(Mad); 1998CriLJ22; 1997(2)CTC567
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused under sections 482 and 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to set aside the order dated March 28, 1995, made in Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 1994, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Pondicherry, with reference to C.C. No. 230 of 1992, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry. 2. The material allegations in the petition are as follows : The respondent had preferred a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, in C.C. No. 230 of 1992, and the learned magistrate had framed charges against the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by that had preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 1994, before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, under section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to revise the charges framed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry...
Tag this Judgment!Rasi Cements Ltd. Vs. Prithiviraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas560(Mad)
S.M. Sidickk, J. 1. This is petition filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras-8, dated January 29, 1997, passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1388 of 1996, in C.C. No. 3322 of 1994, and to direct the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, to permit the petitioner to authorise one P. Suryanarayanan Rao in the place of B. Suresh Yagneswar to represent the petitioner in the above case in C.C. No. 3322 of 1994. 2. It is the case of the petitioner-complainant company that on the dishonour of cheque for Rs. 8,07,978 issued by the respondent/accused, the petitioner has filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C. No. 3322 of 1994, on the file of the court of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and one Suresh Yagneswar, an accountant of the complainant-company, was originally authorised to represent the petitioner-company, who filed C.C. No. 3322 of ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Govindaraj Vs. AswhIn Barai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR798(Mad)
ORDER1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Ss. 482 and 483, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 28-3-1995 made in Crl. Revision Petition No. 15/94 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge at Pondicherry with reference to C.C. No. 230/92 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry. 2. The material allegations in the petition are as follows :- The respondent had preferred a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Judicial Magistrate, Poindicherry in C.C. No. 230 of 1992 and the learned Magistrate had framed charges against the petitioners. The petitioner aggrieved by that had preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 15/94 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry under S. 397(1) Cr.P.C. to revise the charges framed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry and also to discharge the accused from the case in C.C. No. 230/92 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry....
Tag this Judgment!Raasi Cements Limited Vs. Prithiviraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC675
ORDER1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to set aside the order of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras-8 dated 29-1-1997 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1388 of 1996 in C.C. No. 3322 of 1994 and to direct the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras to permit the petitioner to authorise one P. Suryanarayana Rao in the place of B. Suresh Yagneswar to represent the petitioner in the above case in C.C. No. 3322 of 1994. 2. It is the case of the petitioner-complainant Company that on the dishonour of cheque of Rs. 8,07,978/- issued by the respondent/accused, the petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 3322 of 1994 on the file of the Court of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras and one Suresh Yagneswar, an Accountant of the complainant-company, was originally authorised to represent the petitioner company, who filed C.C. No. 3322 of 1994 on 11-4-1994 and subsequently, the above said S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »