Chennai Court February 1999 Judgments
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Thozhilalar Iykkiya Sangam, Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC313
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks a writ of declaration to declare Note 3 of Division VII-C I relating to appointment of several classes, divisions and categories specified thereunder of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations and the qualification for the respective posts framed under Regulation 92 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations as ultra vires, offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India andconsequently to hold the internal selection visualised under letter No. 00614/R/II/92-3 dated 29.12.1992 as illegal and void. 2. The brief facts of the case are: A substantial number of members of the petitioner-union are working as Helpers in the establishment of the respondent- Electricity Board, particularly as workers holding Industrial Training Institute Certificates (in short ITI Certificate) with technical qualification of National Trade Certificate and National Apprenticeship certificate (in brief NT & NA Certificate). The respondent Board was ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Cheran Transport Corpn, Coimbatore 43 and Another Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC500; (2000)IILLJ187Mad
ORDER1. The management of the Cheran Transport Corporation has filed W.P.NO. 17037 of 1991 for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 29.3.1991 made in Petition No. 85 of 1988 in I.D.No.62 of 1982 on the file of the second respondent-Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, therein and to quash the same wherein the second respondent-Industrial Tribunal had refused to approve the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the management against the first respondent- workman by exercising the powers under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. One Thiru G. Balasubramaniam has filed W.P.No. 4065 of 1994 for the issue of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award dated 9.11.1992, made in I.p.No. 53 of 1989, on the file of the first respondent-Labour Court therein, setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner from servire dated 24.5.1988, by the second respondent-management therein, with a direct...
Tag this Judgment!Ramamoorthy Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4444
ORDERB. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. This revision has arises in this way :-The respondent has registered a case in Crime No. 351 of 1992 against the petitioner and others which after investigation has culminated in S.C. No. 30 of 1995. The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place on 3-7-1992 at 6.30 a.m. Some of the accused in this case are arrayed as accused in Crime No. 350 of 1992 which after investigation culminated in sessions case in S.C. No. 8 of 1994. In that case, the occurrence is said to have taken place on the same day, i.e. on 3-7-1992 at 5.30 a.m. The F.I.R. in Crime No. 350 of 1992 was at the instance of one Ganapathy. Ganapathy was also examined as a witness in that case and in the cross-examination he had admitted that there had been a clash between the two rival groups on the previous day, i.e., on 2-7-1992 and the police visited the village on that date and when the incident to Crime No. 350 of 1992 was in progress, the second accused herein was chased...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3939
ORDERK. Natarajan, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the accused 1, 3 and 4 against the judgment of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 31-3-1998 in C.A. No. 127 of 1997 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai dated 18-8-1997 in C.C.No. 461 of 1994 convicting the revision petitioners-accused for the offences under Section 498A, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for each of the offences and in default of the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 weeks. The revision petitioner No. 1-first accused was also convicted under Section 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 406, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo rigorous i...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Naicker Vs. Rangaswamy Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ494
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The defendant on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this second appeal. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Dindigul made in A.S. No. 9 of 1986, dated 23.1.1987 in modifying the decree of the trial court and allowing the first appeal in part.2. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:(i) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the attestation by the defendant in Ex.A-2 would amount to admission of plaintiff's title?(ii) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge is right in referring the decision of the trial court by placing reliance on Ex.A-5, commissioner's report and plan filed in the earlier suit?(iii) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge is right in granting a decree for the alleged suit cart track, when the plaintiff has other car...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Gounder Vs. Prakasam and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ457
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. As per the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the above four matters were listed together and taken by us for hearing. All the four matters could be disposed of jointly as the parties are common and the points that arise for consideration are one and the same.2. Second Appeal No. 654 of 1995 has been preferred by the first defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge made in A.S.No. 129 of 1991 in reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam made in O.S.No. 296 of 1988.3. For convenience the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court in the suit.4. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:Whether the first appellate court was justified in law in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court holding that the suit properties were joint family properties of the judgment-debtor and his sons in the absence of any spec...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswamy Vs. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ721
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 1083 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, who had been unsuccessful before the two courts below is the appellant. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur made in A.S. No. 112 of 1984 in confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, dated 30.4.1983 made in O.S. No. 1083 of 1981.2. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court.Whether the construction placed by the courts below on Exs.B-2 and B-3 is correct?3. Heard Mr. A. Subramaniya Iyer, for the appellant and Mr. S. Parthasarathy, for the respondent.4. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.5. The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of title and for injunction. According to the plaintiff, the suit property and the adjacent land in all measuring 1 acre, 5 cents was the subje...
Tag this Judgment!B. S. Gandhi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2820
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to forthwith return to the petitioner US $12,500/- along with interest yielded so far and documents of five sheets from the possession of the petitioner on 17-3-1993.2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17-3-93 the officers of the respondent searched the office and residential premises of the petitioner and as a result of that US $12,500/- and documents were seized from the petitioner. Relying on Section 41 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act'), the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition on the basis that the proceedings as contemplated under Sections 51 or 56 have not been initiated within six months of seizure and so the respondent cannot retain the documents without returning the same.3. The respondent filed a counter stating that proceedings under the Act have been initiated against th...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanu Pandaram Vs. Kali Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ242
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The plaintiff, who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this second appeal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin made in A.S.No. 59 of 1985 in reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Srivaikundam made in O.S.No. 350 of 1980.2. Heard Mr. R. Dhamodaran for the appellant and Mr. P. Peppin Fernando for the respondent.3. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court.Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial court without properly appreciating and without giving due consideration to the recitals in Ex.A-1?4. For convenience, the parties to this appeal will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.5. The learned Counsel for the appellant after submitting his arguments with respect to the legal contentions submitted that the app...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P. Leela Vs. the Director of Collegiate Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ530
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 10.7.1991, made in Na.Ka. No. 4031/91-92 and to quash the same and consequently to forbear the 4th respondent from reverting the petitioner from the post of Principal of the 4th respondent-college.2. Facts in brief are:The petitioner was working as Senior Grade Lecturer (Tamil) from 22.6.1964 in the 4th respondent-college, which is getting aid and grant from the Government and affiliated to the Bharathidasan University, 3rd respondent herein, and governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Private College Act'). The petitioner was promoted and appointed as Principal of the 4th respondent-college, with effect from 31.5.1990. The appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the 4th respondent-college was duly got approved by the competent authorities, viz.,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »