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 Management of Kodumudi Growers Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. the Pres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ412
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 46 of 1986 dated 13.12.1989 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 7.5.1983. Malpractices and misappropriation indulged in by the employees in the shops, for which 2 were dismissed after enquiry and 6 others were 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 10.8.1985 and offered them their legal dues as per Section 25-F ...
Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited, Represented by Its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ712
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 820, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.8.1982 and G.O.Ms.No. 843, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.8.1985 and quash the same and direct the respondent to forbear from proceeding with the acquisition of the petitioner's land in S.F.Nos.345/2,346/2 and 347/2 of the extent of 3 acres and 21.5 cents in Thelungupalayam Village, Coimbatore District.2. The petitioner is Ms. Jambu Ragavan and Company Private Limited. The case of the petitioner is that it owns an extent of 3 acres and 21.5 cents in S.F.Nos.345/2, 346/2 and 347/2. In S.F.No. 345/2 it owns an.extent of 60.5 cents, in S.F.No. 346/2 it owns an extent of 1.15 acres and in S.F.No. 347/2, it owns an extent of 1.46 acres. The petitioner has purchased the land by a sale deed dated 17.1.1964. It is averred in the writ petition that by G.O.Ms.No. 82...
Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Michael Selvaraj S. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ788Mad; (1999)IMLJ441
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No. 194 of 1986, the Management has filed W.P. No. 13626 of 1990 and the workman has filed W.P. No. 19531 of 1990. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the very same award, the same are disposed of by the following common order.2. For the convenience I shall refer the Management as the petitioner and the workman as second respondent. The case of the petitioner-management is briefly stated hereunder:- The petitoner company which is incorporated under the Companies Act, carries on business in the manufacture of Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles and Industrial Engines. The second respondent was recruited as a daily rated semi-skilled operator on temporary basis from July 16, 1980. Even within two months of his joining service as temporary employee, he resorted to stoppage of work in a concerted manner on August 29, 1980. Again, he indulged in riotous and disorderly behaviour for which he was given a char...
S.A.K.A. Ramalingam Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ168
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 19.5.1984 made in L.A.O.P.No. 65 of 1978 by the Court of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem in the reference made under Section 18 of Act I of 1894 for enhanced compensation by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem in Award No. 4 of 1977, dated 3.12.1977, thereby fixing the value of the lands acquired at Re. 1 per sq.ft. with a solatium of 15% and with interest at 4% p.a. from 4.2.1959 till the date of payment of compensation.2. Aggrieved, the claimant No. 2 in the petition before the lower court has come forward to prefer the above appeal suit on grounds, such as (1) that the lower court itself has observed that 'though the 4(1) Notification was made in the year 1959, the Award was passed only on 3.12.1977 and no reason is given by the respondent why such a long delay is caused to pass the Award'; (2) that the valuation fixed by the lower court at Re. 1 per sq.ft. is arbitrary, unguided a...
Neyveli National Workers Union (Regd.No.286/Sat). Rep. by Its General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC301; [1999(81)FLR1008]; (1999)ILLJ308Mad; (1999)IMLJ424
ORDER1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the proceedings No.Aa2/Pa.Le.No.145/95, dated 21.1.1997 and issued on 9.6.1998 by the Additional Registrar-II of Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, D.M.S. Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-6.2. The impugned order has been passed by the first respondent cancelling the registration of the Neyveli National workers Union, the first appellant herein.3. The case of the first appellant is that the first appellant Union was registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, affiliated to Indian National Trade Union Congress (for short 'TNTUC') having its head office at G.R. Bhawan, II Floor, No.45, Royapettah High Road, Chennai-14. The Union was started with the object of securing rights, privilege and immunities and other protection to its member and also to maintain Industrial peace in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking. The appellant's Union branch is situated at No.D-12, Mahathma...
State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. M.U. Krishnaparayanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1120
Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent.2. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that if 200 persons are permitted to assemble in that Seerani Agrangarn, Marina Beach, there may be difficulty for the police people to maintain law and order, having regard to all other circumstances, such as, the place is an open place accessible to general public. On 6th December, 1998, the police force is required all over the State in several places and in order to avoid any difficulty and to maintain law and order, the members of the respondent-Sangam may not be permitted. He also added that the appellants have all the. respect for the national leader.3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is also equally interested in maintaining the law and order. He added that instead of 200 persons, 100 persons can be permitted to assemble and pay respect to the National Leader Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar by ga...
A. Marappan Vs. Nagarathinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ418
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. C.R.P.No. 1929 of 1997 has arisen out of an order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, (Subordinate Judge) Erode, dated 22.7.1996 in R.A.No. 7 of 1993, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.6.1993 in R.C.O.P.No. 26 of 1992, on the file of the District Munsif, Erode.2. The respondent landlady filed an eviction petition R.C.O.P.No. 26 of 1992 on four grounds, namely, wilful default, sub-letting waste, damages and different user. But the Rent Controller found that the landlady failed to prove the other grounds except the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the eviction order only on the ground of wilful default. He reversed the finding with reference to the sub-letting. He also considered the other grounds rejected the contention of the landlady. Hence, the aggrieved tenant has filed the above civil revision petition.3. C.R.P.No. 1323 of 1997 has arisen out of R.C.O.P.No. 28 of 1992 on the...
A. Aruldoss and anr. Vs. J.V.S. Sivamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ54
ORDERS.M. Sidickk, J.1. The revision petitioners are the defendants 28 and 29 in the suit, who have been subsequently impleaded, and later the suit as against them was dismissed for non-payment of batta by the plaintiff. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents are the defendants 1 to 27 in the suit.2. This revision petition is filed as against the fair and decretal order dated 6.8.1998 passed in I.A.No. 142 of 1997 in O.S.No. 7 of 1977 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Kodaikanal.3. The counsel for the revision petitioners and the 1st respondent/plaintiff were heard in full. After hearing them the point that arises for determination in this Revision petition is to what relief the revision petitioners/defendants 28 and 29 are entitled to in this revision petition.4. Point: It is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent/plaintiff herein by name Sigamani filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, of C.P.C. in I.A.No. 200 of 1991...
Syed Basha (Died) and ors. Vs. P. Doraikannu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ433
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants.2. The first appellant after the filing of the appeal and, as such, appellants 4 to 13 were brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased.3. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. The 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale for Rs. 6,740 on 17.10.1974, agreeing to sell his land, well, electric service connection etc., to the plaintiff. On the date of agreement, Rs. 5,540 was paid. It was agreed that the plaintiff should repay the balance of Rs. 1,200 within a period of three months. Possession was also handed over on the date of agreement itself. On 15.12.1975 the balance of Rs. 1,200 was paid by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant endorsed on the back of the document itself, undertaking to execute the sale deed whenever required. The plaintiff performed his part of the contract and is in possession of the property. On 9.1.1976 by mutual agreement, the plaintiff ...
Hathija Rani and ors. Vs. S. Nasira Babu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ450
ORDERS.M. Sidickk, J.1. The revision petitioners are the defendants/respondents and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs/petitioners before the lower court.2. The revision petition is directed as against the order dated 11.9.1998 in I.A.No. 1183 of 1998 in O.S.No. 197 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court at Ramanathapuram.3. The application in I.A.No. 1183 of 1998 in O.S.No. 197 of 1995 on the file of Additional. District Munsif's Court at Ramanathapuram is filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., to amend the plaint as well as the description of property as set out in the amendment application. It was opposed by the revision petitioners/defendants herein by filing a counter statement. After considering the rival contentions of both the parties, the learned Additional District Munsif of Ramanathapuram allowed the amendment application in I.A.No. 1183 of 1998 on 11.9.1998 against which the present revision petition is filed.4. When the revision petition came...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »