Chennai Court January 2000 Judgments
M.V. Suresh Reddy and anr. Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas525(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Application filed by the defendants under Order 14, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 24, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to permit the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,64,500 and direct the plaintiff-bank to deliver the documents of title to them and pass appropriate orders by way of injunction as against the plaintiff from initiating parallel proceedings in the Debt Recovery Tribunal Chennai in respect of the alleged loan amount.2. The case in brief is as follows :The applicants are defendants in C. S. No. 361 of 1998. They commenced construction of a commercial building for the purpose of letting it out so that they would derive some decent rental income and in that process, the plaintiff-bank was interested in moving into the building to be constructed. The applicants also sent the money by cheque for the purpose of discharging the entire loan together with interest. Having received the cheque, the bank kept quiet till the mont...
Tag this Judgment!Management of New Jayalakshmi Vilas Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR399]; (2000)IILLJ785Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-Management prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent namely the Appellate Authority in Proceedings No. PG Appeal No. 2 of 1999 dated October 29, 1999 and quash the same.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.3. The second respondent-workman moved the Controlling Authority for direction to pay gratuity for the services rendered by him. According to the second respondent, he had put in service of more than seven years. Therefore, he is entitled to payment of gratuity under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The writ petitioner-Management contends that the second respondent- workman is not entitled to payment of gratuity as he has not completed 5 years of service. The Original Authority namely Controlling Authority accepted the case of the writ petitioner-Management and dismissed the application filed by the second respondent-workman. On appeal by the second responde...
Tag this Judgment!A. Vinayagam and 3 Others Vs. Dr. Subash Chandran and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)150; [2001]103CompCas569(Mad); 2000CriLJ1579; 2000(1)CTC225
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the two Criminal Original Petitions they being Crl.O.P.Nos.10902 of 1998 and 6369 of 1999. A reference has been made in Crl.O.P.No.l0902 of 1998 by the learned Judge (M. Karpagavinayagam,J.) in the following terms:'In order to decide as to whether the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed before the court is within time, which is the date to be taken into account? Is it the date of presentation made before the court or the date on which the court took cognizance?'2. The said reference was necessitated on account of there being a conflict between two decisions of this Court, both by the learned single Judges of this Court. In D. Ramamoorthy v. K.J. Duraisamy, 1995 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 300, Janarthanam,J. had held that once the complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was presented within limitation and that presentation was noted b...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Mohammed Vs. V.D. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC386
ORDERl. The landlord is the revision petitioner. He sought the eviction of the respondent/tenant under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by the Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act' on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent.2. The allegations in the petition for eviction are as under:The respondent became a tenant under the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.130 in the year 1983, the rent being payable before the end of every English calendar month. He is a chronic defaulter in the payment of rent and he also inducted a third party into the possession of the building. The revision petitioner filed an application for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.62 of 1983 before the District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai on the grounds of wilful default and unauthorised sub-letting. Eviction was ordered on 14.3.1986 against which the respondent filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.15 of 1986 and the appeal was dismissed by the...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Sundar Raj and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2000
Reported in: I(2000)ACC452; 2001ACJ1685; 2000(1)CTC521
ORDER1. The Insurance Company is the appellant, The appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Padmanabhapuram in M.C.O.P.No. 9 of 1989 on 31.3.1993 against the appellant/ Insurance Company.2. In an accident involving an autorickshaw belonging to the second respondent in the appeal and insured with the appellant herein, the first respondent was injured and he made a claim for Rs.60,000 as compensation. The third respondent was the driver of the autorickshaw.3. The only question arising for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the insurance company can be made liable for payment of the compensation inasmuch as the driver did not have a valid endorsement for driving the autorickshaw.4. Admittedly the driver though held a licence for driving a light motor vehicle did not have an endorsement for driving an autorickshaw. The Tribunal found that the autorickshaw is only a light motor vehicle and the licence to drive the light motor ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jayakumar and anr. Vs. Tamil Chelvi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ288; (2000)IIMLJ382
K. Sampath, J.1. The owner of the vehicle and the insurance company are the appellants. The above civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the award of Rs. 4,00,000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kancheepuram in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 160 of 1991 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein, claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 for the death of one Shanmugavel, husband of the respondent No. 1, father of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and son of the respondent No. 6, in an accident involving the vehicle belonging to the appellant No. 1 and insured with the appellant No. 2.2. The case of the claimants was as follows:On 22.3.1991 at about 10.00 a.m., when the deceased Shanmugavel was on his way to the house in a bicycle, a car bearing the registration No. TSI 7346 belonging to the appellant No. 1, driven by its driver, the respondent No. 7 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him causing grievous injuries to which he succumbed on the way to the hosp...
Tag this Judgment!South India Hotels and Restaurants Assn. (Regd), Rep. by Its President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC393
ORDER1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge in W.P.Nol980 of 1993. The appellant is an association representing the hotels and restaurants. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the notification dated 22.7.92 issued by the Government by which the Government enhanced privilege fee in respect of FL.3 Licence granted to star hotels. The appellant has also challenged a circular issued by the Excise Department to the Collectors whereby the Collectors were directed to take suitable action to recover the enhanced privilege fee. The appellant contended before the learned single judge that the Government have no power or jurisdiction to enhance the privilege/licence fee for the year 1992-93, as the licence had already been issued to the licensees on the basis of the then existing privilege fee and the enhancement of the fee during the middle of the year amounts to breach of contract and is an attempt to collect privilege fee with retrospective ...
Tag this Judgment!Management, Church of South India Vs. Edith Peter and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1341Mad
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Management, Church of South India, Nagercoil, has filed this writ petition seeking for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned Award passed by the Additional Labour Judge, Madurai District, the second respondent herein in I.D. No. 347 of 1983 dated October 28, 1991 directing the Management to reinstate Smt. Edith Peter, the first respondent herein with back wages and continuity of service and quash the same.2. The short facts are as follows:'(a) Edith Peter, the first respondent herein, was employed, as an Assistant Superintendent of the Embroidery industry of the petitioner-Management from July 20, 1977 on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/- with a dearness allowance of Rs. 50/-. (b) On September 22, 1978, the first respondent received an intimation from the Chairman of the Board that her service was terminated. She filed an appeal before the Executive Committee of the Diocese, which, in turn, revoked the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Gordon Woodroffe Ltd. Vs. Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ653Mad
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 certiorari to call for the records in proceedings No. C4/TN/2622/Regl/91 on the file of the respondent, viz., the Regional Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, Madras-600014, and to quash the impugned order dated August 9, 1991, made by the respondent.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, they have rebutted all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested thisCourt to dismiss the writ petition for want of merit.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing...
Tag this Judgment!Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR661]; (2001)IILLJ357Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in order No. TN/INS-VI/51/9236-09, dated August 11, 1992, and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them, one after the other, and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. The petitioner is a registered company and is manufacturing biscuits, bakery and other confectioneries and they employ about 1,040 number of workmen, and has its factory at Padi, Madras. The employees of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »