Chennai Court September 2000 Judgments
Manickam N. and anr. Vs. Assistant P.F. Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ492Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. N. Manickam, beedi manufacturing contractor, Achamangalam village, petitioner in W.P.No.3310 of 1998 has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Salem-1, to receive the petition to implead him as a party in the proceedings No.TN/SL/ENF/21270/7-A KNG 1/97. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the very same officer, dated February 19, 1998, Jyoti Home Industries, Krishnagiri, have filed W.P. No.3553 of 1998 to quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the contractor in Writ Petition No.3310 of 1998 is briefly stated hereunder:According to him, he is an independent beedi manufacturing contractor who obtained the raw materials from the third respondent and supply the same to the workers and on completion of the job work, he collected the finished products and gave it to the third; respondent. He is a contractor in so far as third respondent is concerned i.e., Jyoti Home Industries who are ...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminathan and ors. Vs. Vembuammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ26
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. This appellants are aggrieved by the decree granted in favour of the first respondent herein for 11/16th share in item No. l of the suit property and for damages.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant who was the first defendant in the suit would state even at the outset that the matter actually in controversy is only the l/16th share in item No. l of the suit property. Therefore, it is sufficient if the facts are stated in brief. The appellants 1 and 2 are brother and sister, born to one Sivasami and Chengammal, the third appellant is the son of Sivasami's daughter through another wife.3. The said Chengamalam filed O.S.No. 1239 of 1974 for l/8th share in the property of her husband Sivasami. The defendants in that suit were the 1st appellant, the 1st respondent, the mother of the third appellant and the second appellant. The same was decreed by the District Munsif, Ariyalur, who also held that the properties left by the deceased Sivasami were ancestral in natur...
Tag this Judgment!R. Srinivasan Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2000
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT47(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Counsel contends that the Gold (Control) Act, as it's name indicates, deals with gold and, therefore anything other than gold should be excluded while considering the obligations of persons under that Act.2. The petitioner was possessed of gold ornaments which exceeded in weight 4000 gms. A declaration in respect of such ornaments not having been made, and that fact having subsequently come to light, an order of confiscation had been made. By paying the redemption fine, the petitioner obtained the release of the ornaments, but questioned the confiscation and the levy of the redemption fine, as also the penalty, on the ground that the ornaments in question contained other stones and gems, and if the weight of those stones and gems were to be excluded, the weight of the ornaments would be less than 4000 gms., which would render inapplicable to the case of the petitioner.3. The Gold (Control) Act, which has since been repealed, was enacted in the economic and fina...
Tag this Judgment!P. Duraipandi and 6 Others Vs. Ramanathapuram Municipal Corporation, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC96
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by V.S. Sirpukar, J.1. In this writ appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned single judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition filed before this Court. In that writ petition, the following prayer was made:'For the aforesaid reasons, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions and in particular issue a writ of declaration that the tender notice dated 13.2.2000 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential contract to the 2nd respondent is unconstitutional and void in so far as the right to sell flowers at the New Municipal Bus Stand has been contracted out is concerned and consequently, hold that the respondents cannot prevent the petitioners from carrying on their trade or selling flowers at the New Municipal Bus Stand, Ramanathapuram except charging a reasonable fee of not more than Rs.30 and pass such orders as are necessary and appropriate and render justice'2. It is an accepted ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Thiru Muruga Finance Rep. by Its Partner Sri V. Thirunavukkarasu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC609
ORDER1. All these writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1997). Hence, they are dealt with in a common judgment.2. For the convenience I shall refer the facts narrated by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4157 of 1998. The petitioner Thiru Muruga Real Estate started its business in the year 1984. Vast extent of properties were purchased and layout formed and sold to public for construction of houses. For the past few years, the Real Estate Market was going down by 30 to 40 per cent and there are no immediate purchasers. The petitioner's firm was formed on 18.4.1994 as a Sister concern for the Thiru Muruga Real Estate to accept deposit from the public. Deposits were accepted both by the petitioner-firm and also by the Real Estate entity Thiru Muruga Real Estate. From 15.4.1995 deposits were received and within a short span of time, a total of 2.75 crores were...
Tag this Judgment!AnlIn Uzhiam, Rep. by Its Managing Trustee, 23, Keelachatram Road, the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC233
ORDER1. The petitioners in the above writ petitions claim that they are publishing the newspaper in the book form and they are entitled for renewal of registration under Sec. 9 of the Post Office Act 1898, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. In all these cases, the petitioners have already registered their Newspaper/ periodicals under the said provision. In most of the cases, the registration had been renewed for more than 20 Years, and for the first time, the impugned orders came to be passed rejecting the petitioners request for renewal. 2. The impugned orders are passed rejecting the petitioners request for renewal for the year 2000, mainly on the basis of the letter dated 19.8.1998 sent by the Ministry of Communication; Department of Posts. In the said communication sent to all Regional Postmasters-General, it is stated that when the registration to be renewed are too be granted regionally, it may be open to the Postmaster-General to come to the conclusion that the magazine canno...
Tag this Judgment!M. Selvaraj Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirapalli and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC389; 2000(4)CTC596
ORDER1. The petitioner in W.P.No.14615 of 96 challenges the order of the 2nd respondent relating to Revision Petition No.41 of 1995 dated 30.4.96 confirming the order of the first respondent made in R.No.A2/2095/95 dated 4.9.95. The very same petitioner in W.RNo.14997 of 98 challenges the order of the first respondent in R.No.2095/A2/95 dated 11.9.98 and also prays for direction to the first respondent to issue temporary permit to operate on the Trichy Town Service route 27-D Court to Theerambalayam to the petitioner with the timings already enjoyed by him before the stoppage of service. 2. The petitioner herein made an application for the grant of a stage carriage permit for the town service route Court to Theerampalayam. The firstrespondent herein, by an order dated 4.9.95, rejected the said application on the ground that as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992, his application was not maintainable and the first respondent cannot grant new permit without the approval...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan and Two Others Vs. Subhashini and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC579
ORDER1. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 in O.S.No.499 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, are the appellants in the second appeal. The suit filed by them and their mother Valliamma for redemption of a mortgage was dismissed by the trial Court and this decision was confirmed in the appeal A.S.No.53 of 1996 filed by them before the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, on 30.4.1998.2. The facts leading to the present proceedings may be stated as follows:The first plaintiff Valliamma in the present proceedings and one Chellappan Pillai were sister and brother. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of the first plaintiff. The first defendant is the wife of one Kuttan Panicker. The second defendant is the daughter while the third defendant is the daughter's husband. On 22.1.1968 under Ex.A-1 Valliamma created an othi in favour of the first defendant. The extent was 2 cents. The description of the property as set out in the plaint is as follows: 'Kadavilagom Purayidom bearing...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M. Ganes ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1662Mad
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Employees' State Insurance Court (City Civil Court), Madras, in EIOP No. 84 of 1989. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation is the appellant before this Court.2. EIOP No. 84 of 1989 was filed by the respondent herein, an employee, under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act] (hereinafter called the Act). According to him he was employed from April 14, 1969, as a worker in the factory of Nojes Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd., which was covered by the provisions of the Act. He was an employee within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act and his wages did not exceed Rs. 1,600 per month till January 1988. He met with an accident in the course of his employment on September 21, 1988, which resulted in the crushing of his right hand index finger resulting in the loss of two phalanges on the right hand index finger. Contribution was paid in respect of the petitioner in the EIOP till March 31, 1988 and the...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Rathinam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1052
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The respondents in this appeal are accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 187 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem and they were tried for the following offences:Accused 1 and 2 were charged for an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and against the third accused there was a charge for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 30-3-1990 acquitted all the accused of the offences. The State has challenged that judgment of acquittal in this appeal. Heard Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant/State and Mr. K.V. Sridharan, learned counsel for the respondents/accused.2. The brief facts of the prosecution c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »