Chennai Court December 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Correspondent, St. Ignatius Higher Secondary School, Kurumbanai-62 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC121
ORDER1. In both these Writ Petitions, petitioners seek the issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from insisting on the petitioner- Schoolto create an endowment of Rs. 25,000/- as a pre-condition for the grant of recognition to its Higher Secondary School classes, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase.2. Both these petitioners claim the status of minority institution and they wanted to start Higher Secondary Courses for which the School has got necessary infrastructural facility. The Management sent statements in the prescribed form as required under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules to the Directorate of School Education for the grant of recognition for Higher Secondary Courses. It was also indicated that the petitioner-School, being a minority institution, is not required to create the Endowment of Rs.25,000 as stipulated under Rule 9 (2) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Rec...
Management of Nagammal Mills Ltd. Vs. Kumari Mavatta Noorppalai Thozil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR438]; (1999)ILLJ502Mad; (1999)IMLJ610
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. On July 20, 1990 there was a bandh initiated by the State Government itself. The petitioner-management did not declare holiday. Except 24 employees, other employees did not report for duty. So, the management did not pay the salary to the employees, who did not report for work on the said date. On that basis as many as 66 employees filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli in application No. 44 of 1990. The other set of employees 101 in number filed another application in application No. 36 of 1990. The said applications were filed under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, on the ground that the deduction of salary for the said date was illegal. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour allowed the applications, accepting the case of the employees. Aggrieved, the petitioner-management filed appeal in appeal Nos. 78 and 79 of 1992. Even the learned District Judge, Nagercoil on extraneous consideration of facts, dismissed...
G. Kishore Kumar Vs. A. StalIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ231
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner moved an application before the tribunal to pass suitable orders directing to send for the amount of Rs. 5,20,230 immediately so as to enable petitioner to withdraw one half of the award amount with interest and cost.2. Order has been passed by the tribunal dismissing the petition on the ground that petitioner has engaged another counsel without obtaining the consent of the earlier counsel.3. The order cannot stand for a moment. It is not disputed that the amount under deposit belongs to the petitioner. It is out of that amount petitioner claims one half to be withdrawn as per the application properly filled by him. The affidavit is also sworn to by him though it is filed by another counsel.4. It is stated that the vakalath given to the earlier advocate was not cancelled. Change of vakalath cannot be a reason for denying the relief sought for. If the earlier counsel has any right, he has to take necessary action in accordance with law. That cannot b...
The Management of Nagammal Mills Ltd. Represented by Its Chairman Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ610
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. On 20.7.1990 there was a bandh initiated by the State Government itself. The petitioner-management did not declare holiday. Except 24 employees, other employees did not report for duty. So, the management did not pay the salary to the employees, who did not report for work on the said date. On that basis as many as 66 employees filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli in Application No. 44 of 1990. The other set of employees 101 in number filed another application in Application No. 36 of 1990. The said applications were filed under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, on the ground that the deduction of salary for the said date was illegal. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour allowed the applications, accepting the case of the employees. Aggrieved, the petitioner management filed appeal in Appeal Nos. 78 and 79 of 1992. Even the learned District Judge, Nagercoil on extraneous consideration of facts, dismissed the ...
Ravi E. and 5 ors. Vs. Chairman, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1355Mad
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners 1 to 6 have sought for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records relating to the common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, the second respondent herein, in I.D.Nos. 74, 78 and 86 of 1986 and I.D.Nos. 1, 9 and 14 of 1987 and to quash the same and direct the reinstatement of all the 6 petitioners with back wages, continuity of services and other attendant benefits.2. The petitioners before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras claimed as follows:The petitioners entered into service under the first bank as sub-staffs on (1) May 7, 1979, (2) November 9, 1979, (3) November 23, 1979, (4) March 8, 1982, (5) January 13, 1983, (6) February 7, 1980, respectively. When they were taken into service, the minimum educational qualification prescribed by the first respondent-bank was S. S. L. C. Since they were qualified, as they had passed S.S.L.C., they were called for the interview. They attended...
State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. M. Cauvery Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: [2004]134STC562(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows :The plaintiff filed a suit to set aside the attachment of the suit properties made by the second defendant and for permanent injunction from bringing the same for sale to realise the sales tax arrears and also penalty due by one Malayan Chettiar. She purchased the properties for a valid consideration from one Dhanalakshmi Ammal under a registered sale deed dated March 1, 1973. She is in possession and enjoyment of the properties in her own right and paying the municipal tax. The second defendant filed a written statement that the said Malayan Chettiar was an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, assessed to sales tax from the year 1957-58 and he was under arrears of sales tax from 1957 to 1963. On account of the tax arrears, there was statutory charge over the properties. The plaintiff issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the defendants, o...
S. Rajalakshmi and anr. Vs. the State Government of Tamil Nadu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ240
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with G.O.Ms.No. 123, Education, dated 8.9.1989 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to forbear from taking the land acquisition proceedings against the petitioners.2. The matter is dealing with the acquisition of land for the purpose of the National High School, Nagapattinam. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised several grounds attacking the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, enquiry under Section 5 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act,. He is fair enough to say that the petitioners have filed applications under Section 15-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.10.1989. It has also been stated by him that petitioners have issued telegram on 27.8.1991 stating that they have already sent to application to the Sub Collector, Nagapattinam to call for the records under Sect...
K. Jamal Maideen Vs. the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC355
ORDER1. Heard. 2. In the above writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issue of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue transport permit, enabling the petitioner to transport the clay from Survey No. 583/3 in Kara (East) Village, perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, during the currency of the lease. 3. In brief, the petitioner was granted a lease to mine fire clay over an extent of 2.71 acres in S.No.583/3 of Karai (East) Village, Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District by G.O.Ms.No.220 Industries (MMA-2) Department dated 21.2.1990. 4. Clause 8 of the above G.O. contemplates the petitioner to set up his own industry within two years from the date of the above G.O., failing which, the lease would lapse. Clause 11 of the G.O. makes it clear that the terms and conditions stated in the above G.O. dated 21.2.1990 are subject to further modification, addition or alteration, as may be included in the lease deed and finalised. In pursuance of the said G.O., a lease deed ...
Additional Registrar of Companies Vs. Perfect Benefit Fund Ltd. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas731(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-EOI, Madras-8, on February 28, 1996, in Crl. M. P. No. 656 of 1994.2. The respondent-company herein made an advertisement in The Express on May 24, 1993, inviting deposits from public. Since this advertisement was made without obtaining the permission of the Central Government, a complaint has been lodged. The only reason given in the petition is that the petitioner could not initiate action against the accused, as the application filed by the respondent for exemption was pending before the competent authority. The complaint has to be given within the period of six months from the date of knowledge which was on May 24, 1993, when the insertion was made, it is not the case that the department was not aware of the insertion made in the daily, dated May 24, 1993, and that they came to know about that after a long period. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed on or ...
Mgmt. of Kodumudi Growers Co.Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ497Mad; (1999)IMLJ412
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 46 of 1986 dated December 13, 1989 the management has filed the above writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner Society is a Bank carrying on the business of banking apart from sale of essential commodities through its shops, which have since closed and the second respondent was employed in the petitioner Society as Typist from May 7, 1983. Malpractices and misappropriation indulged in by the employees in the shops, for which 2 were dismissed after enquiry and 6 others resigned. The petitioner Society after intimation to the Additional Collector, Periyar District notified the closure of its shops. This resulted in the second respondent herein and three other workmen rendered surplus to requirements, accordingly the petitioner issued orders of termination to the 4 workmen including the second respondent on August 10, 1985 and offered them their legal dues as pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »