Chennai Court January 2001 Judgments
Krishnamurty K.R. and ors. Vs. Management of Madurai Sourashtra Co-ope ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1290Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. What is impugned is the order of the Labour Court by which the Labour Court declined to grant the relief of reinstatement to the petitioners, who had worked as call boys, which is an unskilled work in the respondent co-operative society, though it was found that they have worked for 480 days intermittently, on the ground that appointments so made, had been made contrary to the requirements of Section 119-A of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the finding that work had been performed for 480 days, the petitioners were entitled to the relief of reinstatement and continuity in service and the Labour Court award to the extent it denies that relief is contrary to law.3. Counsel relied upon two judgmentstendered by two learned single Judges of thisCourt. In the case of M. Irudhayanathan v.State of Tamil Nadu 1997 (3) LLN 544 theCourt found that the relief that had been soughtby the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavan Transport Corporation Vs. Saroj Goyal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ475; (2001)1MLJ383
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1998 of 1993 dated 5.8.96, Pallavan Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') has filed the above appeal. Regarding disallowed claim, the claimants have filed the cross-objection No. 38 of 1998.2. Since the appeal and cross-objection arise from the same order, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.3. In respect of the death of one Sunil Goyal, the widow, minor son and parents of the deceased prayed for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence after holding that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the Corporation, passed an award for Rs. 6,15,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said award, the Corporation has filed the above appeal and with ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Bari and anr. Vs. Palani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ319; (2001)1MLJ360
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. On 2.2.1993, at about 2 a.m. at Tiruppur Palladam Road near T.K.T. Mill the deceased Arumugam was riding a moped bearing registration No. TN 41-Y 2157 and the van bearing registration No. TCA 1716 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the moped and the victim Arumugam sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants are the parents of the deceased.2. The claimants contend that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver and the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 2,500 and the respondents in the petition are liable to pay the compensation. The claimants claimed Rs. 9,00,000 as compensation.3. The respondent No. 1, driver of the van contends that he was driving his van slowly with care and caution on the left side and the victim came on the moped without any lights and he only dashed against the van and the respondent No. 1 is not responsible.4. The respondent No. 3, insurance c...
Tag this Judgment!The Commander Coast Guard Region (East), Fort St. George, Chennai-9 an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ420
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The vessel Kobe Queen 1 is an ocean carrier registered in Panama. The vessel was loaded with cargo steel products in Istanbul. Turkey in or about June, 1999 and the port of discharge was Montego Jamaica in the Caribean Islands. A part of the cargo consisting of 49,450 Metric Tons was consigned to the Order of Global Marketing Services Inc. having office at 420, Lexhind Avenue Site 607, New Your, New York with the notifying party as TW Metals Limited, Kingston, Jamaica. The vessel sailed from Istanbul in or about 3rd August, 1999 and proceeded to Darkar. There was inordinate delay in its voyage and the receiver of the cargo made frantic efforts to locate the vessel and finally an advertisement was caused to be made on 8.11.1999 in the Lloyds List, enquiring about the vessel's whereabouts. It appears that the vessel called at St. Vincent, Cape Verde island between 29th August, 1999 and 4th September, 1999 and subsequently at Laos on 18th October, 1999....
Tag this Judgment!Muruganandam P. Vs. State Industries Promotion Corporation and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1657Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings No. E3/MISC/76/92 dated May 31, 1993 of the first respondent, as confirmed by the second respondent's proceedings No. E3/MISC/ 76/93, dated August 10, 1993, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.2. Heard Mr. S. Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for Mr. P. Rajagopal appearing for the respondents.3. The factual matrix could be summarised briefly. The petitioner who joined the first respondent-Corporation as Junior Assistant during the year 1980 came to be promoted as Assistant Officer. During 1987, the petitioner suffered a punishment of reversion for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the said reversion, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 7475 of 1990 and the said writ petition came ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sabura Textiles Rep. by Its Manager K.S. Shahual Hameed, No/20a A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)393; [2002]112CompCas302(Mad); 2001CriLJ1344
ORDER1. M/s. Sabura Textiles, Thanjavur filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against V.S.Krishnamoorthy before the Judicial Magistrate No.1. Thanjavur. During the pendency of the said case before the trial Court. V.S.Krishnamoorthy, the accused/respondent filed a petition under Section 309 Cr.P.C. praying for the stay of the trial of the case and postpone the case from time to time till the adjudication of the civil suit which he filed against the complainant, the petitioner herein.2. The trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties by the order dated 17.11.1998 allowed the application and ordered adjournment of the criminal case till the disposal of the civil matter before the civil Court. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant, the petitioner herein filed a revision before the Court of Principal sessions Judge, Thanjavur. By order dated 4.4.2000, the learned Principal Sessions Judge also confirmed the order of the trial Court and di...
Tag this Judgment!Harish C. Chadda and anr. Vs. Xs Financial Services Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas169(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 5 and 8 respectively in C.C. No. 1826 of 1998 on the file of the learned 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The respondent is the complainant. The respondent in the complaint filed under Sections 190(1)(a) and 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for an offence under Sections 138, 141(1) and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has stated that the respondent is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 21/1, Crescent Park Street, Chennai-17. The respondent had sanctioned a short-term loan for a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs to the first accused, namely Nubal (India) Limited, Chennai. The said amount was disbursed to the first accused on January 3, 1996, and was repayable with interest at the rate of 36 per cent per annum. Despite availing of the said facilities the first accused has not been regular ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan and ors. Vs. K.L.N. Raghvan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ541
ORDERP. Thangavel, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the tenants as revision petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2000 and made in R.C.A. Nos. 962 of 1997, 696 of 1998, 964 of 1997, 960 of 1997 and 966 of 1997 respectively on the file of the learned 8th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the order and decretal order dated 29.10.1997 and 30.4.1998 made in R.C.O.P.Nos. 4058 to 4062 of 1984 on the file of the learned Xth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.2: Brief facts, that are necessary for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: The respondent in each of the C.R.P. who is the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller in all the rent control petitions is the owner of the premises described in the respective petitions and the revision petitioners herein are the tenants of the respective premises shown in the respective rent control petitions. The premises described in each of the petition was constructed by ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Gowri Shankar Vs. the Secretary to Government Tamil Nadu, Public (S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1487; 2001(76)ECC147
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The detention order bearing reference G.O.SR.I/550- 5/2000 dated 1.6.2000 clamped on the detenu by the first respondent for reasons slated in grounds of detention is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition, mainly on the ground of delay in disposal of representation preferred by the detenu to the second respondent-Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) which was routed through the Jail Superintendent.2. The superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai forwarded a copy of representation dated 3.7.2000 of the detenu, which was admittedly received by second respondent Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 7.7.2000. Upon receipt of the aforesaid representations is addressed to the Government of Tamil Nadu only, it cannot be treated as a representation addressed to the Central Government and considered by it. Accordingly, the third respondent-Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai was requested to clarify whether the detenu wanted his representation dated 3.7.2000 to be addresse...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavan K. Vs. National Carbon Company and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ342Mad
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 39 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif, Ponneri, is the appellant herein. He was an employee since September 26, 1963, under the respondent herein. The appellant herein was transferred to a sister concern of the respondent, viz. Eveready Flashlight Company, Lucknow, by proceeding, dated June 10, 1989. Challenging the order of transfer, the suit has been filed, for declaration that the transfer order, dated June 10, 1989, transferring the appellant to Lucknow is null and void and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant, respondent herein from giving effect to the said order, dated June 10, 1989.2. The respondent filed written statement stating that the order of transfer the subject matter of the suit, was passed only on administrative ground to meet the exigencies of work. The order of transfer has already been given effect to and the appellant also joined in service at Lucknow and claimed travelling allowances a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »