Chennai Court August 2000 Judgments
Nazir Ahmed Vs. A. Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ331Mad
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has file4 the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to I.D.No. 46 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Madurai dated March 12, 1992 and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for, per contra, on behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent and inter alia contended that the order impugned herein is in accordance with law and that there is no merit in the writ petition and that therefore the same has to be dismissed.3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. I have perused the contents...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC131; [2000(87)FLR423]; (2001)ILLJ441Mad
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial tribunal, Chennai in I.D. No. 66 of 1990 on 21.10.1992, the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (TAMIN), Chennai 5 has filed the above writ petition to quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- The petitioner is engaged in mining of graphite stones and other minor and major minerals. The mining operations carried on by TAMIN also includes quarry operations where TAMIN engages contractors and gang leaders to dress the stone quarry by the petitioner. The chislemen are engaged by the gang leader on daily rated basis and they are the independent contractors engaged for specific quarries. There is no relationship of master and servant between the chislemen engaged in various quarries and Tamin. Their engagement is contingent upon availability of works. The chislemen are in the position of independent contractors in their own right and by no such imagination they could be construed as 'w...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Commissioner and Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC141
ORDER1. The above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1987 made in A.S.No.10 of 1988 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1987 made in O.S.No.368 of 1986 by the Court of District Munsif Valangaiman. 2. Adverting to the facts and circumstances encircling the whole affair what comes to be known is that the respondent, herein filed a suit in O.S.No.368 of 1986 on the file of Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman against appellants herein for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings of the defendants in G.O.R.No.1018/Agriculture(AUI), dated 24.11,1984 and in G.O.Ms.No.449 Agriculture, dated 18.3.1986 in respect of the suit property are illegal, void and unenforceable in law and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the said acquisition proceedings and for costs thereby contending that he is the owner of the properties in R.S.Nos.181/1,183/...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subramanian Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruchir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC409
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 13.3.1998, removing him from the service of the Agricultural Co-operative Bank on the ground of conviction by the Criminal Court, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and for direction to the respondents to reinstate him into Bank's service with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :- He joined as Secretary in the 2nd respondent Co-operative Bank in the year 1975. While so, for as offences under Sections 409 and 477-A, I.P.C., a case was registered on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I Tiruchirapalli and the learned trial Magistrate convicted him till the rising of the court and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.750. On the basis of his conviction, his services have been terminated by the Special Officer of the second respondent Bank on 3.1.92. As against the sentence and conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.236 and 244 of 1990, s...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. T.K. Choudhuri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ908Mad
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The above writ appeals have been filed by the Union of India and others against the common order of learned single Judge, allowing three writ petitions viz., W.P. Nos. 15071 of 1988, 5601 of 1989 and 12213 of 1990 and in all these writ appeals, the respondent is same.2. The respondent herein filed the Writ Petition No. 15071 of 1988, praying the Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the enquiry, from the appellants, quash the enquiry proceedings and the order of the 1st appellant made in VI 5014/19/87(L&R;) dated September 23, 1988 as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to change the Enquiry Officer and hold the enquiry afresh at a place other than Seetalpour and Sidhabari. The writ petition was allowed and the appellants have filed the appeal viz., W.A.No.767 of 1998. Writ Petition No. 5601 of 1989 has been filed, praying the Court to issue a writ, calling for the records from the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Sriman Madhwa Sidhanta Onnahini Permanent Nidhi Ltd. Vs. Sanjay R. Moh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas214(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The dismissal of a petition filed under Order 1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the defendant is attacked in this revision petition. The first respondent filed O. S. No. 7123 of 1993 for recovery of Rs. 53,350 with interest. The petitioner which is a Nidhi Ltd., received a cheque dated September 14, 1991, for Rs. 40,000 and deposited the same. Since the petitioner failed to pay the interest in spite of demand made by the first respondent, the suit was filed. 2. The petitioner filed his written statement stating that one A. K. Rajendran brought the cheque dated September 14, 1991, for a sum of Rs. 40,000 drawn by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner. On the representation made by the said A.K. Rajendran this cheque was credited by the petitioner to the account of the said A.K. Rajendran. The amounts were also withdrawn. According to the written statement, since, A. K. Rajendran was a proper party the suit ought to be dismissed in limine...
Tag this Judgment!Jaikamal Paints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT49(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred is as to whether Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules as it existed in the year 1991 is applicable in respect of the inputs lying in stock at the time the manufacturer obtained acknowledgement of declaration made under Rule 57B.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of paints and varnishes which fall under Chapter XXXII of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. During the financial year 1991-92 after availing full basic exemption upto NIL rate under the Notification No. 175/86 the assessee filed declaration under Rule 57G and opted for Modvat Scheme on 12-8-1991. The assessee also claimed transitional credit of Rs. 4,45,460/- and Rs. 20,499/- under Rule 57B in respect of the stock on inputs held by them as on 12-8-1991. That claim though initially allowed was subsequently rejected by the Asstt. Collector. Collector having allowed the appeal of the assessee, the matter was carried to the Tribunal which even while correctly expending the object and...
Tag this Judgment!Jaikamal Paints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC464
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred is as to whether Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules as it existed in the year 1991 is applicable in respect of the inputs lying in stock at the time the manufacturer obtained acknowledgement of declaration made under Rule 57B. 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of paints and varnishes which fall under Chapter XXXII of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. During the financial year 1991-92 after availing full basic exemption up to NIL rate under the Notification No. 175/86 the assessee filed declaration under Rule 57G and opted for Modvat Scheme on 12.8.1991. The assessee also claimed transitional credit of Rs. 4,45,460 and Rs. 20,499 under Rule 57B in respect of the stock on inputs held by them as on 12.8.1991. That claim though initially allowed was subsequently rejected by the Asstt. Collector. Collector having allowed the appeal of the assessee, the matter was carried to the Tribunal which even while correctly expending the object and s...
Tag this Judgment!Sushela Sundaram and 3 Others Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Urban and Land ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC535
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the orders of the District Revenue Officer passed under Sec.20 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, the petitioners filed revisions before the Special Commissioner under Sec.30 of the Act. The Special Commissioner rejected the revisions on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to deal with the revisions against the orders passed by the Tribunal and no appeal/revision is directed to the Commissioner against the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions challenging the orders of the District Revenue Officer. However, from the reading of the amended provisions of the Act 26 of 1997, I find that the stand taken by the Commissioner cannot be sustained in law. 2. Originally, under Sec.4 of the Act, the Government was empowered to constitute as many Tribunals as may be required for the purposes of the Act and each Tribunal shall consist of one person only who shall be a Judicial Officer not below the rank of Subordinate Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Sonaimuthu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC651
ORDER1. All the three criminal original petitions have arisen out of certain dispute between two group of persons belonging to the Nadar Community.2. The facts leading to the filing of the three criminal original petitions can be briefly stated as under:-There is a Nadar Mshajana Sangam at Madurai. Disputes have arisen between one Karikolraj and Arivananda Pandian as to who should be the Secretary of the said Sangam. It has led to formation of factions headed by Arivananda Pandian and Karikolraj. On 26.1.2000, at 23.50 hours, one Maheswaran, Pondy, Paulpondy, Kumar, Sundaramurthy and Kamaraj were chitchating. The persons belonging to Karikolraj group, namely, Karikolraj, Pon Mahendravel, Padmanabhan, Joseph Vasudevan, Gnanasekaran, Mayandi Arumuga Perumal Muttai Selvam and Basker, came there in a vehicle and tried to attack the persons belonging to Arivananda Pandian group. Others escaped, but Pondy was attacked by the group with deadly weapons, as a result of which Pondy died. Kamaraj...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »