Chennai Court December 2000 Judgments
M. Jayaraman Vs. the Chief Enginner/Personnel, T.N.E. Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ457
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Petitioner joined the service in the respondent Board in the post of temporary casual labourer on 3.3.1970. He became a helper on 1.5.1974. Thereafter he became a Commercial Assistant on 1.10.1977 and ultimately he was promoted as Store Keeper II Grade on 26.3.1979. In the post of Store Keeper II, a seniority list was published, where he was shown at No. 215. He therefore made a representation that his junior one Mr. D. Mani was shown senior to him whereas he should have been shown senior to Mr. D. Mani. Significantly enough the said D. Mani was shown at No. 34 in the seniority list. It seems that this representation dated 31.5.1987 requesting the respondent/Board to refix his seniority was accepted and by an order dated 14.1.1988 the petitioner was brought from 215 to 98(a). On the same date he was also promoted as Store Keeper Grade I. The petitioner as soon as he got his promotion on 14.1.1988 made a detailed representation on 31.12.1990 and pointed out tha...
Tag this Judgment!SijIn Thomas Jacob Vs. the Bharathiar University, Represented by Its R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ593
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings dated 8.11.2000 under which the petitioner was informed that in the meeting held on 30.11.2000, the Syndicate of the first respondent University had resolved that the petitioner's admission to M.B.A. degree course during 1999-2000 was cancelled, as the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility requirements prescribed for admission to M.B.A. degree course.2. The petitioner passed B.Com. (Hons) in second class from St.Xaviers College, affiliated to University of Calcutta in April, 1999. Thereafter, he made an application for issuance of eligibility certificate to the first respondent University. In the proceedings dated 27.8.1999, a provisional eligibility certificate was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent University stating that the petitioner, who has passed B.Com. examination of the University of Calcutta, is eligible for admission to the first year of the M.B.A....
Tag this Judgment!Sellammal and anr. Vs. Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ561
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.3.1987 made in O.S.No. 177 of 1986 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, thereby decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession as prayed for.2. To trace the history of the case, the respondents in this appeal have filed the suit before the trial court praying for partition and separate possession of the suit properties, which are landed properties falling under many survey numbers and patta numbers 109, 110 and 330 of Vasanthapuram Village of Namakkal Taluk on averments such as that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of the 1st defendant and the 3rd plaintiff is the mother of the defendants 1 and 2; that the suit properties are the common properties belonging to the joint Hindu family consisting of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 they being the members of the joint Hindu family; that the father of the defendants 1 and 2, who is the husband of the 2nd plaintiff named Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Renganayaki and Another Vs. K.R. Renganatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ212
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Arani rendered in O.S.No.27 of 1985 and the question raised herein is one of res judicata.2. There were two cross suits between the same parties in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Arani. One was for recovery of possession and the other was for declaration and permanent injunction. The possession suit was filed by the respondent herein in O.S.No.27 of 1985 against the appellants herein. The declaration and permanent injunction suit was filed by the first appellant herein in O.S.No.20 of 1986 against the respondent herein.3. The subject matter of both the suits was a storeyed house and adjoining vacant site. The respondent herein, in his suit, claimed ownership of the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 19.5.1983 alleged to have been executed by the appellants herein and sought for recovery of possession from them. The first appellant herein, in her suit, asked for a decree declaring the sale deed dated...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Glendale Estate Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ379Mad
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 connected with the award of the first respondent, dated August 13, 1993, and made in I.D. No. 323 of 1989, and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner-management 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. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of them argued the matter justifying the award passed by the Labour Court and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel preparing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit toge...
Tag this Judgment!Management, Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ375Mad
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 connected with the award of the first respondent, dated March 11, 1993, in I.D. No. 56 of 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 second 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. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together wit...
Tag this Judgment!Management of WavIn India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ154Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above batch of writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner, the management of Wavin India Ltd., praying for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for and quash the common award dated March 31, 1997, passed by the first respondent-Principal Labour Court Chennai, in I.D. Nos. 195 to 200, 240 and 241 of 1990 and 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712 and 713 of 1990.2. Heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for Mr. A.R. Gokulnath appearing for the petitioner, and Ms. Geetha for Mr. Fenn Walter for all the respondents in all the writ petitions.3. It is fairly stated by either side that the facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are identical and all the writ petitions could be disposed of by a common order as the contentions are one and the same in all the writ petitions. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions, as practically, there is no difference in facts from one industrial dispute to...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lalitha @ M. Latha Vs. R. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC507; (2001)1MLJ201
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Respondent in the F.C.O.P. is the appellant herein. The case of the petitioner is as follows :The petitioner and the respondent got married on 10.11.1991 according to Hindu religious rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was employed as an Assistant in the State Bank of India, Madras and the respondent was also employed in Kalpana Lamps and Components, The petitioner has got deformity with his legs due to polio attack. He cannot walk fast and freely. Knowing fully well about his health the respondent married the petitioner. After marriage, the respondent started to ill-treat the petitioner and abuse the petitioner by saying all sorts of derogatory remarks about his deformity and the respondent also called the petitioner as a limp. On 1.1.1992, when the petitioner went to the office of the respondent to pick up her while returning home, she objected to that saying that she did not like him and she did not like to go with a limp person in public...
Tag this Judgment!Bakthavatsalam Vs. Anjapuli and 5 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ101
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order o the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, dated 1.2.2000, in an unnumbered application in O.S.No.160 of 1996.2. The petitioner herein initially filed a suit for partition at Sub-Court, Cuddalore on 17.2.1994. Thereafter, the same was transferred to District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and numbered as O.S.No.160 of 1996 and a preliminary decree was passed on 6.8.1998. It is is the case of the petitioner that in the meanwhile the respondents have sold certain suit properties to various third parties. He has also filed an application for passing a final decree. Accordingly, he has filed the present application under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C for impleading respondents 4 to 6 to bring as Defendants 4 to 6 in the suit. The learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, after holding that after passing of the preliminary decree on 6.8.1998 and at the stage of passing of final decree the petitioner has filed the present ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Muthaiah Vs. Jayammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas710(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Mr. R.T. Duraisamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has raised the following points :(i) The cheque was obtained by the complainants from the accused only out of threat and coercion. Even according to the complaints, an agreement was entered into between the complainants, and the petitioner in the presence of Panchayatdars. As per the said agreement, it was decided that in violation of any term, the parties should go to the Civil Court. Therefore, the act of approaching the criminal Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not valid in law. (ii) The contents of the complaints alleging that the petitioner issued a cheque in discharge of a liability are entirely false. Therefore, the complaints have to be dismissed. (iii) As per the agreement, the petitioner issued the cheque on November 16,1998, in favour of the complainants but the cheque was pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »