Chennai Court September 1997 Judgments
Workmen of Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd. and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1090Mad; (1998)IMLJ139
A.R. Laksivmianan, J. 1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of his Lordship Mr. Justice K. S. Bakthavachalam in W.P. No. 16715 of 1991 dated April 26, 1994 dismissing thhj wretition filed by the appellant Union. arn Judge has held that there is no aflde in the transfers made, when transfers are made from two unions and not from the members of appellants union alone. The writ petition was filed against the impugned action of the management relating to workers who are members of the appellant union employed in the Coach Factory at Viralimalai. 2. The writ petition was filed for a Mandamw directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to refer the dispute relating to the transfer of 121 workmen declined to be referred in (G.O.D. No. 1076 dt. October 28, 1991) by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Government under the proceedings dated October 28, 1991 after examining the conciliation report of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai dated July 4, 1991 in regard to an industrial disput...
Tag this Judgment!Management of William Goodacre and Sons Ltd., Alleppey and anr. Vs. Ne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)IMLJ242
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The respondent/workmen in both the writ Appeals field W.P. 7508 of 1985 to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in I.D. 38 of 1983 as published in G.O.Ms. No. 1295 Labour and Employment Department dated September 26, 1984 and direct the Management of Tac Floor Company and the management of Willam Goodacre and Sons Limited to reinstate the workmen with backwages and continuity of service. 2. Tac Floor Company is doing business in manufacturing mat floors and mats. The said company and the management of William Goodacre and Sons Limited. Alleppey are closely interconnected. On September 4, 1982 Tac Floor Company gave a notice under Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act holding that it had transferred the Tac Floor Company Unit with its appurtenances and other facilities excluding mat looms to the 2nd respondent-Company (William Goodacre and Sons Limited) under an agreement of lease. The services of all the workmen were terminated and one month'...
Tag this Judgment!Selvaraj Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2683
ORDER1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner Selvaraj under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 8692/96 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The material allegations in the petition are as follows :- The petitioner was charged for the alleged offence under sections 379 read with 34, I.P.C. along with another accused by name Sampath, who is arrayed as first accused in this case. The petitioner is facing trial before the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court and it is alleged that the petitioner herein along with the 1st accused Samapth had stolen a sum of Rs. 1420/- from the complainant by name S. S. Nathan, son of Krishnan, in a bus running between P. Orr. and Sons and Wallajah Road Junction on 10-10-1996 at 1.30 p.m. The charge sheet has also been filed against the petitioner and the said Sampath (A1) in C.C. No. 8370/96 and the co-accused Samapth in this case pleaded guilty, and hence the case as against the...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Sundaram Industries Limited Represented by Sundaram Industr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ139
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of K.S. Bakthavatchalam, J. in W.P. No. 16715 of 1991 dated 26.4.1994 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant Union. Learned Judge has held that there is no mala fide in the transfers made, when transfers are made from two union alone. The writ petition was filed against the impugned action of the management relating to workers who are members of the appellant union employed in the Coach Factory at Viralimalai.2. The writ petition was filed for a mandamus directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to refer the dis-pute relating to the transfer of 121 workmen declined to be referred in G.O. (D. No. 1076 dated 28.10.1991) by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Government under the proceedings dated 28th October, 1991 after examining the conciliation report of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai dated4.7.1991 in regard to an industrial dispute raised by Sundaram Industries Employees Union, Madurai against the M...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of William Goodacre and Sons Ltd. and anr. Vs. K. Neela ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ242
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The respondents/workmen in both the writ appeals filed W.P. No. 7508 of 1985 to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in I.D. No. 38 of 1983 as published in G.O. Ms. No. 1295, Labour Employment Department, dated 26.9.1984 and direct the Management of Tac Floor Company and the Management of William Goodacre and Sons Limited to reinstate the workmen with backwages and continuity of service.2. Tac Floor Company is doing business in manufacturing mat floors and mats. The said company and the Management of William Goodacre and Sons Limited. Alleppey are closely interconnected. On 4th September, 1982 Tac Floor Company gave a notice under Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act holding that it had transferred the Tac Floor Company Unit with its appurtenances and other facilities excluding with mat looms to the 2nd respondentCompany (William Goodacre and Sons Limited) under an agreement of lease. The services of all the work-men are terminated and one mon...
Tag this Judgment!V. Janaki Vs. Azimunnisa Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ482
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. C.R.P.No. 3172 of 1994 is against the order dated 26.10.1993 in R.C.A.No. 61 of 1992 confirming the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 29.11.1991 in M.P.No. 1140 of 1990 in R.C.O.P.No. 2734 of 1989.2. C.R.P.No. 2788 of 1996 is against the order dated 26.10.1993 in R.C.A.No. 62 of 1992 confirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 29.11.1991 in R.C.O.P.No. 2734 of 1989.3. Both the civil revision petitions arise out of a common order dated 26.10.1993 in R.C.A.Nos. 61 and 62 of 1992 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.4. R.C.O.P.No. 2734 of 1989 was filed by the landlady under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 18 of 1960, for eviction against the respondent-tenant in both the civil revision petitions in this Court. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent-landlady filed a petition M.P.No. 1140 of 1990 under Section 11(3) and (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) ...
Tag this Judgment!irulappan Vs. Meenakshisundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC140
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27.2.1997 passed in I.A.No.190 of 1997 in O.S.No.254 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for sending the suit document for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert.2. The facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:- The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.254 of 1994 before the lower court for recovery of a sum of Rs.l,66,800 on a promissory note dated 15.7.1991 executed by the petitioner. Though the defendant, the petitioner admitted that the signature in the promissory note was put by him, his case was that it was put on a blank promissory note given by him in the year 1986 and as such, he has never executed any promissory note dated 15.7.1991. In order to establish his case that the signature in the suit promissory note was put in the year 1986 and other writings...
Tag this Judgment!Kunal Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR340(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J. 1. These two tax cases arise out of two references made by the Tribunal for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, respectively, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Out of the three questions of law referred to us for the assessment year 1974-75, the second question of law has already been answered by the apex court against the assessee in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. : [1992]198ITR297(SC) . Therefore, the second question of law raised in T.C. No. 709 of 1982 is answered in the affirmative. We will discuss the other two questions of law a little later. 2. So far as the assessment year 1975-76 is concerned both the questions of law referred to us have been answered against the assessee, one by the judgment in CIT v. Elgi Rubber Products Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 109 and the second by the judgment in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]219ITR581(SC) . Therefore, in Tax Case No. 710 of 1982 relating to the assessment year 1975-76 we answer b...
Tag this Judgment!Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR232(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. Desirable it is, on the facts and, circumstances of these cases, to pen down a common order. 2. The assessee, namely, Velimalai Rubber Co., Ltd., Kottayam, is one and the same in both these actions. This apart, the assessing authorities are also the same. Further, the questions pressed into service also appear to be common. 3. The former action is relatable to the assessment year 1983-84, while the latter action is relatable to the assessment year 1982-83. 4. In the former action, the assessee claimed the following, among, other, deductions before the Agricultural, Income-tax Officer-II, Nagercoil, in the computation of 'agricultural income'. (i) Insurance claim of Rs. 3,884. Out of this amount a sum, of Rs. 1,000 has been disallowed. (ii) Claim regarding repairs to vehicles to the tune of Rs. 42,109.90. On this head, a sum of Rs. 21,054.95 had been disallowed. (iii) Income from rubber, by way of subsidy-Rs. 38,694. The claim under this head had been entirely disall...
Tag this Judgment!N. Anandurai Vs. Divisional Excise Officer, Karur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC40; (1998)IMLJ561
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of prohibition restrainingthe respondent from taking any further steps for collection of the allegedarrears of kist by the deceased mother of the petitioner in respect of arrackshop No.6 Karur Taluk, for the excise year 1982-83.2. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the writ petitioner as follows:-The petitioner's mother Chellammal was a licensee for an arrack shop No.6 Karur Taluk, for the Excise year 1982-83 and in respect of which, a sum of Rs.3,14,075 seemed to be the arrears as evident from a communication received from the respondent dated 24.3.1988. This communication was served on the petitioner on 25.4.1988. The petitioner's mother Chellammal died on 1.4.1986. The petitioner sent a letter to the respondent on 2.5.1988. This was followed by further two letters from his Advocate on 15.6.1988 and 28.7.1988. He also gave a statement to the respondent in August, 1988 stating that on the death of his mother, no property of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »