Chennai Court January 2000 Judgments
Natarajan Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR177]; (2001)ILLJ388Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein, has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the award dated March 2, 1992, in I. D. No. 118 of 1980 passed by the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, the first respondent herein, and to quash the same and to direct the management of W.S. Insulators, the second respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with back-wages, continuity of services and other attendant benefits.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the second respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them, one after the other, and ultima...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. D. Mathan Kumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR933]; (2000)IILLJ313Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. In these writ petitions since the subject-matter involved and also the petitioners and second respondent are common, both these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. Writ Petition No. 9005 of 1992 has been filed by the petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with I.D. No. 71 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Madurai, and to quash the award, dated March 9, 1992 and W.P. No. 9006 of 1992 has been filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with I.D. No. 282 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Madurai, and to quash the award, dated March 6, 1992.3. In support of the writ petitions the petitioner herein has filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ ...
Tag this Judgment!The Narasimha Mills Ltd., Narasimhanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore-641 031 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC406; (2000)ILLJ1353Mad
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned District Judge, Coimbatore in E.S.I.O.P.No.212 of 1989. The Management, being the petitioner in the O.P., is the appellant in the above appeal.2. Before the Employees State Insurance Court (E.S.I. Court), an application was filed by the appellant under section 75 of the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act') seeking to hold that no contribution could be claimed by the Employee's State Insurance (E.S.I), Corporation in respect of various items listed in the petition. Out of the total amount of contribution if Rs.1,18,487.14, as determined to be due under the order of the respondent dated 19.9.1989, the petitioner was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.23,403-20 and the correctness of the demand of the balance amount of Rs.96,06.94, which represented the contribution payable on the disputed items of payments, was prayed to be set aside.3. In June, 1987, a show cause notice was issued to the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Chinthamani and Others Vs. the Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC21
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioners have chosen to question the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) and also under Section 6 on the ground that the person interested has not been issued any notice. Section 4(1) notification has been issued on 11.2.1991, it has been gazetted on 13.3.1991, paper publication was made on 15.3.1991, it was published in the locality on 18.3.1991. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 19.6.1991 and Section 6 declaration was issued on 23.6.1991. The petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition after the declaration under Section 6 on the ground that no notice has been issued to the petitioners' sister by name Mrs.Chinthamani, who has got a share in the property. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer has beeninformed of the above fact, the writ petition was admitted and interim stay of dispossession was ordered. However the award was passed on 25.11.1992.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that though the name of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Umarani Vs. D. Vivekannandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC449; II(2000)DMC422; (2000)IIMLJ234
ORDER1. Petitioner in I.A.No.43 of 1997 in H.M.O.P.No.22 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Sankari, is the revision petitioner.2. Respondent herein filed an application for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Application was filed on 10.3.1997. An application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting interim alimony and litigation expenses, was filed by the petitioner on 28.8.1997. In her application for getting interim alimony, the petitioner alleged that her husband is getting sufficient income and she is not in a position to maintain herself. According to her, herself and her child have been deserted by the husband and they are put to great mental agony and financial difficulty and are living in misery. They are being maintained by her parents and brothers. To the main divorce petition also, the petitioner filed her counter and thereafter 31 postings were given to enquire into the matter. The respondent has changed his vakalath and ...
Tag this Judgment!Velusamy and Another Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC530; (2000)IIMLJ48
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by K. Govindarajan, J.1. The appellants are the owners of the lands bearing S.F. Nos.301/1A2, 301/1B, 302/1B, 301/1C, 302/1A2, 301/2, 302/1C, 302/2, 311/1 and 311/2 in Kallapatti village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District. The said lands were sought to be acquired by the Government for neighbourhood scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.192 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.2.1994 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 24.2.1994. The appellants claims that they have submitted their objections on 19.8.1994. After holding enquiry under Section 5A of the saidAct and after considering the objections raised by the appellants, as recommended by the Land Acquisition Officer, declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 28.6.1995. At this stage, the appellants have challenged the said acquisition procee...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnammal and 8 Others Vs. Elumalai and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC214; II(2000)DMC278
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned subordinate judge, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.80 of 1989 in reversing that of learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu in O.S.No.335 of 1981. The defendants 1 and 5 to 11 are the appellants in the above appeal.2. The suit was filed for directing the partition of the suit properties into 16 equal shares and to allot 9 shares to the plaintiff and to direct the defendants to pay mesne profits from the date of the plaint till the delivery of the plaintiff's share. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of one Palayam through his first wife/Pattammal. The 12th defendant is the daughter of Palayam and Pattammal. Pattammal died in 1966 and thereafter, the said Palayam married the first defendant as his second wife. The defendants 2 to 6 are the children of the first defendant. The seventh defendant is the younger sister of the first defendant. Palayam was having illicit intimacy with the seventh defendant. She was not married to Pala...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakamma Vs. Kamalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC240
ORDER1. The decree holder in O.S.No.121 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kuzhithurai, is the revision petitioner. She obtained a decree against the respondent herein on 25.9.1989 for declaration and injunction restraining her from entering the suit property and putting up any construction or building. She filed E.P.No.124 of 1990 under Order 21, Rule 32 of theCode of Civil Procedure alleging that the respondent in defiance of the decree against her committed trespass upon the suit property and put up a shed and a building and she had to be therefore removed from the property, the construction demolished and the respondent arrested. The respondent could not be served and therefore paper publication was effected; she was called absent; set ex parte and delivery was ordered after demolition on 7.12.1992. The delivery was to be effected by 7.1.1993. The delivery was also effected as per the direction of the Court on 18.12.1992.2. Thereafter, the decree holder/revision pe...
Tag this Judgment!M. Gulam Rasool Vs. T.S. Govindarajan and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC12
ORDER1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. His eviction was sought on the ground of sub-letting.2. The case of the first respondent/ landlord is that the revision petitioner became his tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.350, that he had let out a portion of the property to respondents 2 to 4 without his consent in writing, that on 19.12.1987 he sent a notice to the revision petitioner taking exception to this, that at that time one Selvaraj was running a barber shop in the property, that after he vacated the portion, it was let out to the second respondent, that the revision petitioner had accepted in the reply to the notice that the property had been sub-let, that the said sub-tenants were there even before the revision petitioner came to the property, that the first respondent gave permission to the revision petitioner to collect the rent for respondents 2 to 4, that because of sub-letting the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 were liable to be evicted.3. The revision petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Vasu thevar and ors. Vs. Rukmani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)1MLJ517
P. Sathasivam, J.1. An interesting and important question arises in this appeal. The appellants who did not appear in Court when Appeal Suit No. 55 of 1998 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur was called and decided against them, have filed an unnumbered Interlocutory Application under Order 41, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree passed on 30-10-98 and rehear the appeal by giving an opportunity to them to contest the same.2. The brief facts are stated hereunder:-- According to the appellants, the suit property bearing Door No. 76-B, Sevabatti Naidu street, Rajapalayam is under the possession and enjoyment of the first appellant herein right from the year prior to 1964 and he had put superstructure thereon. The respondents without any right or title whatsoever filed O.S. No. 233 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Srivilliputur, against the first appellant and his wife Balakrishnammal for declaration of title and for possession in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »