Chennai Court August 2000 Judgments
The Madras Port Trust Railway Men's Union, Bhagat House, rep. by Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC21
ORDER1. The petitioner-union has filed this writ petition, to quash the nomination of the member or the third respondent as labour representative in the Board of Trustees or the Chennai Port Trust as notified in the proceedings dated 24.5.2000 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to nominate Mr.V.K.Balakrishnan representing the petitioner as the labour representative in the Board of Trustees of the Chennai Port Trust.2. The Board of Trustees for the Port Trust has to be constituted by the Central Government once in two years as contemplated under Section 3 ofChapter 11 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Two representatives of the Labour Union have to be nominated to the Board of Trustees to represent the interest of the labourers employed in the Port Trust under Section 3(1)(c)(i) of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The representative of the employees is selected on the basis of the recommendation of the Union having majority of members. To find out the Union having majority of me...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gopalakrishnan Vs. M/S. Venkateshwara Camphor Works No.14, Panneer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC222
ORDER1. The appellant was manufacturing camphor tablets under the name and style of 'Gopal Camphor Tablets'. When he came across the respondent's product 'Muruga Camphor', he filed a suit to restrain the respondent from marketing his product, which was dismissed and hence this appeal.2. According to the appellant, he is the registered owner of thetrademark carton with the distinctive figure of 'Lord Krishna'. The carton'sget-up, colour scheme and layout had been specifically designed. He hadobtained registration on All-India basis. The registration number is 316466 inClass 3 Part (A). It was first registered in the year 1967, and with a slightdifference again registered in 1980. The registration has been renewed tilldate. He has been in the camphor business for over forty years with a verygood reputation. The appellant had also incurred heavy expenditure inadvertising and marketing the products. One day, his agent saw a camphorcarton very similar to the appellant's carton. In fact, in ...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Harish Vs. the Central Warehousing Corporation, Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC517
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the Charge Memo dated 20.6.1995 of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 11015 of 1996. The verysame petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 12246 of 1998 against the Charge Memo dated 14.7.1998.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-The petitioner is the Executive Engineer of the respondent Corporation in the Madras circle Office. During the year 1982. the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer at Bombay in the first respondent Corporation and he was asked to take charge of the work for construction of 10,000 MTC Godown at Central Warehouse at Indore, for which the first respondent Corporation entered into valid contract agreement with the contractor. The petitioner supervised and executed the said work carried out by the contractor. On 2.8.82. one Mr. R.K. Gupta. Joint Manager (Engineering) of the respondent Corporation inspected the construction work at Central Warehouse. Indore and instructed that the existing...
Tag this Judgment!Vimalraj M. and ors. Vs. Management of Air India Ltd. (Rep. by Its Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2000
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ705Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue raised is one and the same in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 15915, 15916, 16405, 16786, 17318, 18092 of 1999, 3102, 3786, 4271, 5934 and 7977 of 2000 have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents viz., Management of Air India Ltd., not to indulge in the practice of employing persons such as the petitioners only for 90 days and ousting them thereafter and in particular direct the respondents 1 to 3 to frame a scheme for regular absorption of the workmen like the petitioners and consequently direct the fourth respondent - District Employment Officer, Kancheepuram to maintain the seniority of the petitioners in the Employment Exchange, so as to preserve their seniority in the event of such of the petitioners who do not get regularisation on the framing of the Scheme.3. Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 17267, 17387, 19769 of 199...
Tag this Judgment!M. Subramanian Vs. State Bank of Mysore, (Ho) K.G. Road, Bangalore and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC451
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent/Estate Officer, State Bank of Mysore under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the respondents have not rights and jurisdiction to invoke the provisions under the Act, the petitioner can sustain the writ petition at this stage. The learned counsel has relied on Section 2(2)(ii) of the Act, which reads as follows:-'any Corporation (not being a company as defined in Sections of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government'.On the basis of the said Section, the learned counsel has submitted that the 1st respondent-bank is not owned by the Central Government, though it is established under the Acts 23 of 1955 and 38 of 1959.3. While dealing with the scope of t...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sadasivam Vs. the Director General of Police, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC163
ORDER1. This criminal original petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to direct the first respondent to order re-investigation of the Crime No.39 of 1999 on the file of the Dindigul Taluk Police Station, by an Officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police.2. The case of the petitioner is thus:- The petitioner Sadasivam is working as Supervisor in I.I.T. He had three daughters, of whom, one Poonkodi was the eldest. Poonkodi was given in marriage to Thangapandi, who is working as Head Constable in Armed Reserve Police Force, Dindigul. The marriage was held on 20.1.1997. Later, the matrimonial life of Poonkodi was not happy. Thangapandi, his sister Pattu Pandeeswari and his mother Mala and his brother-in-law Pandidurai were demanding dowry. In fact, they demanded a motor cycle, a colour Television and Rs.20,000 from Poonkodi toward dowry. On 5.4.1998, a child was born to Poonkodi in the lawful wedlock. But her husband Thangapandi refused to come and s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR572(Mad)
N.K. Jain, Actg. C.J.1. The above tax case is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-I, Madras, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following questions of law for the assessment year 1976-77 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) was not valid ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the gross interest payment which had been incurred in the foreign branches was entitled to deduction under Section 35B ?'2. Learned senior standing counsel for the Department submits that so far as the first question of law is concerned, the Tribunal has held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the authority and without jurisdiction, which...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. South India Hosiery Manufacturers Association
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT627(Mad)
N.K. Jain, Actg. C.J.1. These Writ Appeals have been filed against the order of the learned single Judge wherein the interim order granted on 1-2-2000 in relation to the Amended Electronic Transfer Scheme dated 27-12-1999 was made absolute on 11-2-2000.2. The brief facts that are necessary are that the petitioners-concerned (Respondents 1 to 4 herein) in W.A. Nos. 504 of 2000 & 548 of 2000 are alleged to be a registered body under the Societies Registration Act, and they have challenged the introduction of quota transfer system, namely, Electronic Transfer System (hereinafter referred to as ETS).3. The appellant Apparel Export Promotion Council is an independent body sponsored by Government of India. Learned Central Government Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the Government is always competent to frame a policy as per the requirements and exigencies of public, considering national, international and bilateral agreements. He also submitted that the Government is regulating PPE, NG...
Tag this Judgment!D.E.i. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(122)ELT21(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The issue to be considered is as to whether the firm contract was required to be backed by irrevocable letter of credit in order to entitle the appellant to have the benefit of the import licences dated 21.01.1988 and 27.07.1987 of which, the appellant had taken an assignment on 03.09.1989. Prior to the said assignment, orders were placed by the original licensees on 04.01.1988 and 06.06.1988 and those orders had been accepted by the suppliers in Singapore on 11.01.1988 and 21.06.1988. The goods to be imported were Faximilo Transmission Equipment, 39 numbers, valued at Rs. 7,20,3797-. The import was actually effected on 16.08.1989 and 31-12-1989.2. The import trade control policy for the period April-March 1988-91 only required that the licensee should place a firm order on the foreign supplier within six months from the date of issue of licence. The licence also contains only that stipulation. It is not a requirement either in the licence or in policy, that in ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinaraj and Another Vs. Kanthasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC481
ORDER1.The petitioners, the judgment-debtors have filed this civil revision petition as against the order of arrest in S. P. No. 18 of 19% on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge. Kallalkurichi, in execution of money decree passed against than in O.S.No.106 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Viliupuram.2. Both the petitioners, the judgment-debtors were ordered to be arrested through the impugned order dated 31.7.2000. The same is being challenged in this civil revision petition by both the judgment-debtors.3. Mrs. Hema Sampath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently urge the point that the order of executing Court is in error of jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Court has not followed the mandatory procedure laid down in Order 21, Rule 40 C.P.C. even without any enquiry or any evidence adduced by decree-holder in support of his application for execution and without giving opportunity to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be committed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »