Chennai Court July 2000 Judgments
Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1261Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Madurai, in I. D. No. 94 of 1988, dated February 17, 1992, Pandian Roadways Corporation has filed the above writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner-Corporation, it is an undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu engaged in public transport. It has its own standing orders governing the service conditions of its employees. The petitioner has a right to recruit a probationer and put him on probation. The second respondent herein was engaged as a conductor Grade II by an order dated February 5, 1973. Even in the appointment order it is specifically stated that the second respondent will be under probation for a period of twelve months, which may be extended at the discretion of the management for such further period. As the performance of the second respondent was found to be unsatisfactory, his period of probation was further extended for a period of six months in three spells of two months each. Since the service of ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union Vs. St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ889Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees' Welfare Union is the petitioner in both the above writ petitions. In W.P. No. 15236 of 1998, the said Union through its President prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited to regularise the services of the petitioner Association members from the date of their joining service and to pay back wages and other attendant benefits.2. In Writ Petition No. 17147 of 1998, the very same Corporation has prayed for similar direction directing the second respondent-Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited to give employment on Saturdays to the petitioner Association members and to pay back wages for the previous four Saturdays and other attendant benefits.3. The case of the petitioner Union is briefly stated hereunder:According to the Union Secretary Ms. C. Sumathi, the Association is registered under the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Muthu Zulaikha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]245ITR800(Mad)
N. K. Jain, Actg. C. J.The matter has been referred to us by a Division Bench of this court, before which the tax reference came up for hearing, as it was not inclined to agree with the decision rendered by an earlier Division Bench of this court in the case of CWT v. V. T. Ramalingam : [1993]201ITR839(Mad) , and felt that the matter requires reconsideration by the Full Bench. Accordingly, to have an authoritative view of law, the following question of law has been referred for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the provision of section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act even though the assessee was not the owner of an independent residential unit exclusively used by her for residential purposes ?'The necessary facts in brief which give rise to the question are as under:2. The assessee, an individual, filed the returns for the assessment years 1979-80 and 198...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Iliyas and Another Vs. M.R. Pakkirisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC321
ORDER1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common judgment and decree dated 28.11.1994 and made in R.C.A.Nos.7 of 1992 and 9 of 1992, confirming the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.62 of 1989 and 59 of 1989, respectively, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Nagapattinam. 2. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions are as follows:- The petitioners before the Rent Controller, Nagapattinam, who are the appellants before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, are the revision petitioners herein. The revision petitioners are the owners of the property described in the eviction petition. The revision petitioners leased out a thatched shed measuring about 33-1/2 feet x 19-3/4 feet, to the respondent, on 21.7.1982. on a monthly rent of Rs.30 and advance amount of Rs.100 was paid. The area of lease was enlarged by extending the thatched sheet by 53 feet x 19-3/4 feet, in the year 1983 and the respondentagreed to pay the rent at Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Hepsy Bell Mohan, 65-f, Roopa Nagar, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore - ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC277
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the advertisement issued by the respondents for appointment of the post of Principals in a higher secondary school run by the fifth respondent. A short factual history would not be out of place.2. Petitioner joined initially as a Headmistress in the Montessori School run by the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents. The 6th respondent is the Correspondent. This was way back in the year 1978. Thereafter, the said school kept on progressing so much so that ultimately the school which had started as a Montessori school became a higher secondary school. It is an admitted position that the school belongs to the minority. It so happened that the petitioner who was serving as a Headmistress right from the beginning had also acquired the qualifications of B.Ed. and M.A. during all these years, so much so t...
Tag this Judgment!Hyfric Shoes Exports (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. M.M.T.C. Ltd., Rep by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)823; 2000(3)CTC207
ORDER1. Heard Mr.T.Sudanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.Santhanaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioners are the accused in Calender Case No.4601 of 1994 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and the respondent is the complainant therein. The case was taken on file on a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There are two cheques, one dated 6-8-1994 and the other dated 20.8. 1994 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000 and Rs.6,82,000 respectively, admittedly given by the accused in favour of the, complainant. Those two cheques are marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2. On presentation, those cheques were dishonoured. Followed by the statutory notice and giving the accused the time prescribed by the Act to meet the demand and on his failure to make the payment, the complaint had come to be lodged.2. On the side of prosecution, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. The second accused examined himself as...
Tag this Judgment!Hi-q Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 679, 10th Main, 4th Block, Koramangala, Ban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC342
ORDER1. The respondents 1 and 2 exercising powers under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 brought in the properties question for auction. The petitioner has submitted tender to purchase the said properties. The petitioner's offer was confirmed for a sum of Rs.11,60,000 on 26.4.1999. On such confirmation, the petitioner was called upon to remit the balance sum of Rs.10,44,000 within one month thereof, failing which, the petitioner was warned that the deposit amount would be taken as forfeited. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner received a communication dated 26.5.99 from the 3rd respondent informing that the proprietor, M/s.Maxima Electronics was in arrears of sales tax to the tune of Rs.1,80,814 for the assessment year 1994-95 to 1998-99. Immediately the petitioner approached the third respondent. The 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that the properties purchased by the petitioner were attached, and the same was notified in the District Gazette, dated 22.1.99, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanthi Vs. Inspector of Police Nib Cid Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC335; 2000(72)ECC729
ORDER1. This petition has been filed for the grant of bail as the petitioner was arrested on 22.7.99 for allegedly found in possession of 500 grams of heroin for the alleged offence under section 8(c) read with 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 52(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the article seized has not been forwarded to the Magistrate. In support of the said submission the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the letter of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram addressed to the Special Judge N.D.P.S. Cases, Chennai in D.No.2413 dated 26.7.99 wherein it has been stated as follows:- 'The property in this case have not been received by this Court and Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Chennai-2 has been asked to produce them before the Special Judge, NDPS Act cases on or before 6.8.1999.'3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sinceadmittedly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayaraghavan G. Vs. General Manager (Personnel), Indian Bank Head Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR509]; (2001)IIILLJ580Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider sympathetically and provide a suitable job in Indian Bank to him on compassionate ground without rejecting his claim on technicalities and also on the ground of laches.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder. According to him, he is the only son apart from two sisters to his late father Govindaraj who was working as a peon in Indian Bank, Pondicherry Union Territory. His father died in harness on June 7, 1981 leaving behind him, his wife and two daughters. At the time of his father's death, he was only 8 years old. After the death of his father, his mother requested the respondent-bank through its branch at Neravy, the second respondent herein to give her an appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further stated that he has passed SSLC with good marks apart from Higher Examination in typewriting in both Tamil and English and also obtained ...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesan S. Vs. First Additional Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ799Mad
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The writ petitioner, who is no more and who is stated to have died pending writ petition, filed an application in C.P. No. 436 of 1989 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Madras for computing the benefits due to him arising out of a scheme called Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the respondent. That application was dismissed and the correctness of the said order is being challenged in this writ petition before this Court. In this order the parties to the proceedings would hereinafter be referred to as the workman and the company respectively as they are arrayed before the Labour Court. Heard the learned counsel on either side.2. The case of the workman, as placed before the Labour Court, is that, he joined the services of the company on December 12, 1955 and retired on June 21, 1986 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme as a Clerk. The Scheme provides for, among other things, ex-gratia payment and souvenir on the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »