Chennai Court September 2000 Judgments
The Deputy Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Sub Regional Office, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC537; (2001)ILLJ934Mad
ORDER1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Principal District Judge, Periyar District at Erode (The Employees' State Insurance Court, Erode) made in E.S.I.O.P.No.2 of 1991 dated 13.12.1994. The respondent in the said petition is the appellant herein. The respondents inthe present appeal challenged the order of the appellant herein dated 29.7.1991 determining the contribution amount to be paid by the respondents on the ground that the respondents were not given reasonable opportunity and the claim on contribution was without any basis. The E.S.I. Court by order dated 13.12.1994 allowed the petition filed by the respondents.2. The case of the respondents in the petition filed before E.S.I. Court is that, they are manufacturing wet grinders. The establishment is not a factory defined under Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 since the establishment has only 5 employees. It was the further case of the respondents that on 21.12.1989, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran E.R. Vs. Mettur Government Servants Co-operative Stores Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ91Mad
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The second respondent in W.P.No. 9214 of 1988, has preferred this writ appeal having been aggrieved against the order, dated January 8, 1998, made by the single Judge of this Court in so far quashing the order, dated March 15, 1988, passed by the second respondent appellate authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, in T.N.S.E. Appeal No. 6 of 1987 preferred by the appellant before him under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, as against the order of termination from service of the first respondent-management.2. Tracing the history of the case it comes to be known that the appellant herein while working as the salesman in the first respondent Co- operative Stores, Ltd., was alleged to have committed various misconducts and charges were framed against him by the first respondent on September 6, 1986 for misappropriation of funds on December 31, 1985 and on February 28, 1986, for stock deficit to the value of Rs. 11,541.06 as ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Steel Re-rollers Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT316(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. W.P. No. 14672/97 is filed by Madras Steel Re-rollers Association. Other writ petitions are filed by individual companies. Both the Steel Re-rollers Association and the individual companies have approached this Court to issue a writ of declaration to declare Rule 5 of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997, inserted by Notification No. 45/97-Central Excise (NT), dated 30-8-1997, as ultra vires and contrary to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and to Sub-rule (3) of the said Rules. Tamil Nadu Steel Re-rollers Council has filed similar writ petition, namely, W.P. 167 of 1998 seeking similar prayer. Petitioners in W.P. 18792 of 1997 and in W.P. No. 2992 of 2000 question the consequential orders passed by the authorities pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules referred to above. The petitioners in W.P. No. 17899 of 1997 and 18253 of 1997 challenge the Notification Nos. 27/97 and 33/97, respectively.2. On the basis of the v...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Mc. Adams Chemicals Manufacturing Company, 70-b, Viralimalai Road ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC751
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in C.M.A.112 of 1996 dated 5.8.1998 by the II Additional District Judge, Trichirapalli, setting aside the decretal order and order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichirapalli dated 8.11.1996 passed in I.A.No.828 of 1996 in O.S.No.499 of 1996.2. The first petitioner is a Partnership firm represented by the second petitioner in his capacity as its Managing Partner and the three other petitioners claim to be the partners of the first petitioner firm, OR a perusal of the pleadings, the following facts emerge. The first petitioner consisted of thirteen partners and a suit came to be laid at the instance of the petitioners in O.S.499 of 1996 against the rest of the partners for a declaration to declare as null and void, the purported removal of the second petitioner from the position and status as Managing Partner of the first petitioner firm by defendants 2 to 10 and consequential relief of pe...
Tag this Judgment!R. Vijayakumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: 2001(74)ECC542; 2000(122)ELT670(Mad)
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking to issue a writ of declaration, declaring Sl. No. III(b)(ii) and the portion of the explanation '... in the preceding financial year' of Notification No. 41/99-Central Excise, dated 26-11-1999 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires Article 14 read with Article 39(c) of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are running tea factories, and in view of the impugned portion in the Notification, the petitioners are liable to pay excise duty for the financial year 1999-2000. Though many grounds have been raised in support of the prayer the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has focussed his arguments only with respect to the restriction for getting the benefit of duty exemption to the extent that such factories should have worked for at least six months during 1998-99. The learned counsel has submitted that such a restriction has no nexus to the object to be achieve...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Lakshmiammal Vs. Ekambara Gounder and 5 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC648
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants, the respondents herein in O.S.No.41 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Villupuram for partition and separate possession. The trial Court granted a preliminary decree for partition by its judgment dated 15.7.1992. The defendants, the respondents herein, aggrieved by the same, filed first appeal in A.S.No.120 of 1995 in the District Court, Villupuram. The lower appellate Court by its judgment dated 31.10.1995 partly allowed the appeal in respect of the items 3 and 4, the dwelling houses are concerned, however confirmed the decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of items 1 and 2 are concerned. Peeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in respect of dwelling houses, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, the appellant herein.3. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of one Murugesa Gounder, the father of the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!The Planters' Association of Tamil Nadu, 'CANOWiE', Coonoor, Nilgiris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC261
ORDER1. Since the question raised is one and the same in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order. The Planters' Association of Tamil Nadu, Coonoor, Nilgiris District, aggrieved by the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner/second respondent dated 1.8.1994 and the proceedings of the Regional Transport Commissioner. Pollachi, third respondent herein dated 7.1.94 has filed Writ Petition No. 17486 of 1994. The very same Association has filed Writ Petition No. 6170 of 1995 questioning the proceedings of the second respondent dated 1.8.94 and also for direction to forbear the respondents from demanding any Motor vehicles Tax in respect of vehicles belonging to the members of the petitioner Association. Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited, Coonoor through its Managing Director has filed Writ Petition No. 7111 of 1995 seeking the very same relief as claimed by the Planters' Association of Tamil Nadu. Three private individuals namely, K. K...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India, Express Towers, Nariman Point Bombay-400 021 and Having ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC147
ORDER1.This Civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Company Law Board, Chennai dated 21.3.2000 sanctioning a Scheme under Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 in the matter of Kirloskar Investments and Finance Limited, Bangalore. The Bank of India being one of the secured creditors and intervener before the Company Law Board, is the revision petitioner before this Court.2. Though the civil miscellaneous petitions are posted for disposal the main revision petition it self had been taken up for disposal and heard.3. A perusal of the order of the Company Law Board discloses that the Board has been receiving large number of complaints from depositors under Section 45QA of the Reserve Bank of India Act for the payment of deposits against M/s. Kirloskar Investments and Finance Limited from August, 1999. It is reported that the Bench had received more than 1000 applications with aggregate amount for non-payment of Rs.340 lakhs on matured deposits. The appli...
Tag this Judgment!C. Chinnathambi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1243
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of two petitions namely 4574 and 4575 of 1995. The first petition is filed by one Chinnathambi while the second petition is filed by Srinivasan. Both petitioners are the parents of one Palaniammal and Nandakumar respectively. These two innocent children aged 11 years were the students of 6th class in a Government Higher Secondary School, Kaveripattinam. In that school, the parent teachers association had constructed a water tank for the usage of the students and the teachers. On the fateful day while these children were washing their utensils in the recess the said water tank broke and fell down on the two innocent children crushing them to death. The Government has sanctioned Rs. 5000/- to each of them by way of ex gratia payment. 2. The petitioners now come up before this Court saying that the Government had tortious liability and since the accident took place during the school time, the Government was liable to compensate the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran Vs. Thiyagi A.K. Sundararasu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC45
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is the respondent in O.P.No.2 of 1998 on the file of the District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal. The said O.P. was filed by the respondent herein seeking permission to file the suit as informa pauperis. The suit is for damages of Rs.50,000. It is the case of the respondent that he has no means to pay the court-fee and hence he should be permitted to file the suit as informa pauperis. The petitioner herein took an objection stating that the respondent is receiving a sum of Rs.2,000 per month, as Freedom Fighters Pension. Moreover, the petitioner is the owner of the house worth about Rs.50,000. Hence the petitioner cannot be said to be a man of no means. However, the trial court, without considering the objections taken by the petitioner herein, has allowed the O.P. and permitted the respondent to file the suit as informa pauperis. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.2. I have perused the order of the lower court.The trial Court has a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »