Chennai Court August 2000 Judgments
Sivakami Mills Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ815Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner by name Sri Sivakami Mills Ltd., Thenur, represented by its Managing Director at Madurai, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief sought for to set aside the order passed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent in I.D. No. 396 of 1990, dated January 29, 1993.2. In support thereon, the writ petitioner filed an affidavit wherein he narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file this writ petition and requested this Court to allow the same.3. The other side filed a counter-affidavit rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after another and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.4. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The point for consideration is as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow the writ petition or not.5. I have gone...
Tag this Judgment!B. Loganathan Vs. the Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC351
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against the charge memorandum of the second respondent dated nil calling for the petitioner to submit written statement of defence within 10 days to quash the same and for consequential direction to the second respondent to consider and promote him as Senior Assistant with effect from 13.1.1998 with all service and monetary benefits.2. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as clerk in the municipality and was subsequently absorbed in the Villianur CommunePanchayat service as Junior Assistant with effect from 11.11.1974. The 2nd respondent-Villianur commune Panchayat published a seniority list of Junior Assistants on 12.11.87, in which his name figures at Sl.No.5. He is fully qualified for promotion to the next higher post of Senior Assistant and has been making representations to consider his case and to promote him to the next higher post. While so, the second respondent has served on him the impugned charge memo alleging that he...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Nadar Vs. Sukumaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC473
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.11 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kuzhithurai, is the appellant in the second appeal. 2. The parties are father and son. The suit was filed by the father/appellant for declaration of his title and possession and for consequential injunction. His case, as set out in the plaint, is as follows: The plaintiff has got four sons and one daughter, the defendant/respondent being the youngest son. The plaintiff is an agriculturist and a businessman. He had purchased properties in the name of all his children including the respondent with his own funds. The purchases were made benami for his benefit and he is in possession of all those properties. He owns lorries and cars. The registration certificates in respect of the same are in his name and the other children. The suit property originally belonged to Avadappa Pillai. On his death, in a partition between his widow and his brother, it was obtained by the widow Muthammal. Muthammal executed...
Tag this Judgment!The Management Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC397
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.Nos.628 and 868 of 1996 dated 23.12.96 directing the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance of Rs.10,050 and 5,520 respectively, the Management, District Co-operative Milk Producer's Union has filed the above writ petition.2. The necessary facts pertaining to the writ petition is stated hereunder-According to the petitioner, the second respondent was employed under the petitioner Union on casual basis as an attendar. While employed as such he had indulged in a misconduct, viz., attempting to cause loss to the petitioner Institution. Hence, through order dated 17.2.94, he was not continued to be employed. Subsequent to the order dated 17.2.94, the second respondent had made claims for subsistence allowance, on the basis he was suspended frorn duty. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, before whom, the claim was made, had also computed the amount payable to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ashok Kumar Vs. Mrs. Jasoda Bai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC24
ORDER1.This revision arises against the dismissal of an application under O.7, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint.2. The respondents herein filed-O.S.No.8120 of 1980 before the XII Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras against the petitioner herein for an injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the partnership firms, business and premises and for direction to the petitioner to issue receipts for advance and rents in the name of the partnership firm and for other relief.3. Pending the suit, interim injunction was also granted in I.A.No. 19575 of 1998. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.5274 of 1999 under O.7, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint as it was barred by law in view of the provisions of Sec.69 of the Indian Partnership Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). In the affidavit filed in support of this application, the petitioner stated that there is no whisper in the plaint as to whethe...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Ananthachari Vs. A.C. Rajagopalan and Six Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC658
ORDER1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.295 of 1996 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman is the appellant herein: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated17.7.1998 made in A.S.No.37 of 1997 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam thereby remanding the case to the Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman, which passed the judgment and decree dated 2.1.1997 in O.S.No.295 of 1996. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein and one Balakrishnan filed the suit in O.S.No.295 of 1996 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman in their capacity as Trustees of a Private Trust called Andi Krishnasamy Iyer Private Trust against the appellant herein for delivery of possession of the suit property and for past and future rents. The suit property is a vacant site measuring about 35' x 411/2, located in Ward No.4 of Kumbakonam town. 3. Regarding the facts of the case, the plaintiffs would submit in the plaint that the suit pr...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmigu Mariamman Koil, Pattudaiyaviruppu, Aikudi, Tiruvarur Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC725
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.240 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur, are the appellants in the second appeal. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of an extent of 8 cents out of 96 cents in R.S. No.199/7 in Pattudaiyaviruppu Village, Aikudi Vattam, Kodavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur Munsif, on the following averments:The plaintiff is a public temple under the control of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Department and it is represented by the trustee appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagai, of the H.R. & C.E. Department. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff temple. The property is in Patta No.321 and R.S.No.199/7 and was in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff temple. About 10 years prior to the suit, the first defendant entered into the suit property and started enjoying by raising dry crops. Inspite of several requests and demands made by the trustee, the first defendant did not give up the property. The plaintiff caused a notice to be issued on 6....
Tag this Judgment!G. Chockalingam Vs. M. Vasantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad522
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The first defendant in the suit has filed the above Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal order dated 11-10-1999 made in LA. No. 252 of 1999 in O.S. No. 16 of 1997 by the Court of District Munsif, Devakkottai.2. The history of the case is that the first respondent herein as the plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner and five others, who are shown as respondents 2 to 6 herein, for declaration to the effect that the will dated 12-11-1993 was the last will and testament of late Ganapathy Chettiar and consequently restraining the first defendant from in any manner implementing the recitals of the earlier will dated 5-6-1993 on ground that it had been revoked and for costs.3. On the part of the first defendant, in his written statement, he would take up the plea of forgery for the will dated 12-11-1993 on account of the physical condition of the executant Ganapathy Chettiar since he was not in a position to move out of Madurai so as to ex...
Tag this Judgment!Renowned Auto Products Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. G. Soman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR252]; (2001)ILLJ218Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Petitioner herein is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Vellore, dated April 14, 1995, by which the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, filed by the worker/respondent herein, has been allowed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 62,136 to the respondent herein.2. The petitioner is a Company wherein the respondent was a workman as a Turner. He was working on a monthly salary of Rs. 300 from 1981. The respondents case is that he was terminated from service in 1983 and, therefore, he raised an industrial dispute, I.D. No. 128 of 1984. Ultimately, the Labour Court, by award dated December 10, 1998, directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with back wages and continuity of service. His further claim was that when he demanded reinstatement, the petitioner, by letter dated December 20, 1991, asked the respondent to join duty in Delhi. It is further claimed by the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Shanmuga Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: [2001]79ITD402(Mad)
ORDERCherian, A.M.This appeal has been filed by the assessee Sri Shanmuga Textiles P. Ltd., Udumalpet against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore in the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1991-92. The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of additional tax under section 143 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the order of rectification under section 154 passed by the assessing officer.2. For the assessment year 1991-92 the assessee filed the return admitting a loss of Rs. 3,14,053. The assessing officer processed the return under section 143(1)(a) and issued the intimation on 23-3-1992. Later a notice under section 154 was issued on the assessee proposing to rectify the intimation pointing out that the loss as computed was not correct and that there had been claim of excess loss. The assessing officer passed the order of rectification on 3-8-1993 reducing the loss to Rs. 1,49,543 as a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »