Chennai Court February 2000 Judgments
Essorpe Mills Ltd. Vs. Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas588(Mad); (2001)IILLJ24Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner-company prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in respect of the order dated 15-11-1999, passed by the third respondent in C5/TN/CB/3924/Enf/ CBE.V.99 and quash the same.2. Heard Mr. C.S. Dhanasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and of Mr. V. Vibishanan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. On behalf of the respondents a counter has been filed. With the consent of counsel for either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The order impugned is an order of adjudication dated 15-11-1999, passed by the second respondent, who is the competent authority under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The impugned proceeding is an adjudication proceeding passed by the third respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 7A and the dues payable by the writ petitioner for the period ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmiammal and Another Vs. C.P. Nanjappan and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC29
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S. No.129 of 1986, reversing the judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, in O.S.No.2145 of 1981. Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a decree directing the defendants to divide the suit property into three equal shares by metes and bounds and the plaintiff be allotted and put in exclusive possession of one such separate share and granting such ancillary and incidental reliefs. According to the plaintiff, late Ponnai Gowder is the common ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff is the son of Ponnai Gowder. Theother two sons of Ponnai Gowder being Dasai Gowder and Ponniah Rajan. Both of them are since dead and the first defendant is the son of Dasai Gowder, the second defendant is the wife of Dasai Gowder and the third defendant is the daughter of Dasai Gowd...
Tag this Judgment!Kottiammal (Died) and 6 Others Vs. Somuthiram and 5 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC584
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, in 86 of 1983, confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, in O.S.No.872 of 1981.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the ex parte, decree passed in O.S.No.872 of 1981 dated 3.2.1983 in respect of the properties covered under second and third schedule of the plaint, as against the second plaintiff, for declaration that plaintiffs 1 and 2 have equal half share in plaint Schedule 2 and 3 properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties originally belonged to the joint family consisting of Neerathilinga Asari, his wife Ganapathy Ammal and their sons Ramalingam Asari, Veerappan Asari. Though some of the properties has been purchased in the name of Ganapathi Ammal, they were purchased only from and out of the join...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Pandiyan Roadways Corporation, Madurai Vs. S. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC528
ORDER1. This appeal arises out of the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srivilliputhur, in M.C.O. P.No. 675 of 1994. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant in the above appeal.2. According to the claimant he was aged 60 years old at the time of the accident and he was free from any ailments. He was a good agriculturist and having vast extent of wet and punja lands in Kamarajar District. His monthly income is not less than Rs.1500. On 8.11.1988 at about 4.15 p.m. he was travelling alongwith his relatives in an Ambassador car bearing registration No.TDT 2455 from Kalingapatti to Appaya Naickenpatti and the driver of the first respondent was keeping his left side of road from south to north. At that time, the driver of the first respondent vehicle bearing registration No.TML No.6312 came in a very rash and negligent manner. He came in a terrific speed without sounding horn and dashed against the Ambassador Car TDT 2455. As a result of the collision, the claimant an...
Tag this Judgment!Mrf Ltd., 124, Greams Road, Madras, 600 006. Rep. by Its Company Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC686
ORDER1. The second defendant in C.S.No.442 of 1997 has filed these applications under Order 14, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, Order 14, Rule 2 of Civil procedure Code, Order 14, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code and also read with Order 9, Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint as barred by law and as not disclosing any cause of action, to dispose of the suit on the preliminary issue of law and to postpone the settlement of the issues of fact after the settlement of issues of law, to strike out/amend the issues framed in the suit on 3.12.98 and to direct the first respondent to make discovery on oath of all the documents in its power and possession relating to the claim for costs.2. The case in brief for disposal of all these applications is as follows:The first respondent has filed the suit against the applicant and the 2nd respondent for a declaration that the first respondent is not liable to pay the applicant any sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mohamed and Another Vs. Nabisath Beevi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC5
ORDER1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.60 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, are the revision petitioners.2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from evicting the plaintiffs from the scheduled property and for other reliefs. It is their case that from the year 1980, they are residing in the scheduled property as absolute owners. First defendant is the sister of the 2nd plaintiff and, the 2nd defendant is her husband and they have no manner of right or title over the scheduled properly. Whileso on 8.3.1997, the defendants tried to evict the plaintiff from the scheduled property by force after making some false claim. Plaintiffs apprehend that the defendants may forcibly evict them and they have filed a suit for the reliefs stated above.3. In the written statement, they denied the right of the plaintiff, but also filed a counter-claim that on the. basis of their title, they are entitl...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Gopal Vs. K.G. Banumathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad300; (2000)IIMLJ107
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these Revisions are filed by the husband in H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 1999. on the file of Family Court at Madurai.2. Petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 1999, seeking divorce of the first respondent herein on various grounds. Pending application, first respondent herein filed I.A. Nos. 74 and 75 of 1999. In IA No. 74 of 1999. first respondent herein wanted to restrain the husband, petitioner herein, from redeeming a property scheduled in that petition by discharging an 'othi', executed in favour of second respondent in that I .A.3. In support of that I. A., first respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner herein is working as a driver in a Government undertaking and is getting a monthly income of not less than Rupees 5,000/-. She has further said that in 1997 they fixed a house on 'othi' which belonged to the second respondent in that application. The 'othi' amount was Rs. 34,000/-. Since the husband was not in possession of sufficient...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1697Mad
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for seeking writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Madurai, in his award in I.D. No. 126 of 1991, dated September 17, 1996 and to quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a public sector transport undertaking belonging to the Government of Tamil Nadu and engaged in the business of passenger transport by bus. The second respondent was employed as a conductor on May 22, 1986, when he was on duty in the bus plying in the route between Devakottai and Madurai at 12.35 P.M. the checking inspector boarded the bus at Manalmettupatti. After obtaining the ticket book from the second respondent, the checking inspector checked the tickets. In such checking, he found that ticket No. 838 has been mentioned in the ticket book as Thiruppathur to Melur, but the fare has not been mentioned legibly. Apart from this, the fare of Rs. 4.80 for ticket No. 8...
Tag this Judgment!Gordon Woodroffe Workers and Staff Union Vs. Joint Commissioner of Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1150Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of three writ petitions, they being W.P. Nos. 2336 of 1989, 1677 of 1989 and 13504 of 1993 as all the three writ petitions have one common ground of an industrial dispute between Gordon Woodroffe Ltd. a registered company, hereinafter, called company for the sake of brevity and its Workers represented by Gordon Woodroff Workers and Staff Union, hereinafter called 'union' though the specific questions involved in the individual writ petitions are of different nature.2. Following is the factual scenario: An application came to be made in the prescribed form under the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, on November 16, 1987, to retrench 96 workers of the company. The concerned authority, before whom the application came to be made, conducted an enquiry on the basis of the documents filed by the company and the evidence led by the union, which naturally opposed such permission. This permission was necessitated as ...
Tag this Judgment!U. Prashanthi, Rep by Her Power of Attorney Agent, Mr. U. Karunasesh, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC714
ORDERJudgment Pronounced by K.Govindarajan, J.1. The appellant's, lands were sought to be acquired for the formation of Maduravoyal Neighbourhood Scheme sponsored by the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard bearing survey Nos.11/2B measuring 0.94 cents, in 12/1a measuring 0.36 cents in 12/1b measuring 0.37 cents and 13/2 measuring 1.62 acres in total measuring 3.29 acres in Ambattur Taluk. The notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'The Act') in G.O.Ms.No.857 Housing and Urban Development dated 26.8.1985 was published in the Government Gazette on 25.9.1985. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in G.O.Ms. No.1525, Housing and Urban Development, dated 28.9.1986. As the major portion of the lands are not required for the said project, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.31222/A2/87 2, Housing & Urban Development, dated 7.12.1987 withdrew the above said Notification with respect to 2.37 acres leaving 0.92 cents in S.No.13/2 alone for the above said Housin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »