Chennai Court June 2001 Judgments
Mrs. Rajammal and 3 Others Vs. the Commissioner for Collegiate Educati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1292Mad
ORDER1. This petition is by the four unfortunate petitioners who are all ladies. Out of them, the first petitioner is already dead and her legal representatives have already been brought on record.2. The petitioners were working in the College run by the second respondent as sweepers. It seems that they were working for quite some time. The first petitioner was working there from 1957 while the other petitioners were working from early 70s. The College came under the sweep of the Private Colleges Regulations Act which Act came in the year 1976. The said Act prescribed the conditions of service of the teaching as well as non-teaching staff. It is the admitted position that this College receives 100% grant. It was the policy of the Government, which has reflected from the Government Orders, that a staff working in the private college for five years as on 1.1.1979 as a contingent staff should get a permanent status and, thereafter, the said staff could be brought on the regular time scale...
Tag this Judgment!M. Perumal Udayar and Etc. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad471
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioners herein challenge the levy of the local cess and local cess surcharge on the ground that the said levy was illegal and without any authority.2. The petitioners were granted licence to remove Aralai, Jelly and sholing stones from Stone Quarry in S.F. No. 28/2 Bit 1, Bit 3 and Bit 2 measuring an extent of 1.62.0, 0.50.5 and 1.01.0 hectares for Faslis 1402 to 1404 respectively. This was in pursuance to an auction held on 8-3-1993. The petitioners remitted the bid amount along with local cess and local cess surcharge. The local cess is in pursuance of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and it is at the rate of 100% while the local cess surcharge is at the rate of 500%. The petitioners challenge the demand and sought for an injunction and the injunction was granted by an order dated 13-7-1993. The claim of the petitioners is more or the less based on the reported ruling in India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, , where it is found that Section 115(1)...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.S. Oil Mills Vs. S.V.S. Agro Refineries P. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC41(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. This application for interim injunction in O.A. No. 505 of 2001 in C.S. No. 435 of 2001 is filed to restrain the respondents from manufacturing, marketing, advertising in all media including electronic media, either as domain name or as website use the expression S.V.S. either as prefix or suffix and pass off their edible oil of any kind and Vanaspathi as the goods of the plaintiffs edible oil and Vanaspathi or enable others to pass off their goods and business as that of applicants. 2. The applicant's case is briefly as follows;- Originally, the applicant firm was consisting of 7 partners Sivalingam Nadar, S.V. Harikrishnan, S.V. Chandrapandian, S.V. Kasilingam, S.V. Ramachandran, S.V. Nalesan and Smt. Kanthimathi Ammal. All are sons and daughters of Late. Velayutha Perumal Nadar. They have been manufacturing and marketing edible oil in the name and style of S.V.S. Oil Mills. In the course of business, they adopted three letters in a distinctive style S.V.S., the...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Aerated Water Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(132)ELT544(Mad)
1. In all these writ appeals, the questions arise for consideration are one and the same and hence, by consent of all the counsels, the writ appeals are taken up for joint final disposal.2. The appellants herein filed the writ petitions challenging the validity of Clause (4) of the Notification No. 59 of 1994 Central Excise dated 1-3-1994. The learned Single Judge upheld the validity of the said Clause. Both the learned Counsels agreed that the validity of the said Clause has also been upheld by the Apex Court. Hence, there is no need to traverse the validity of the said Clause.3. The question for consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled for the exemption of excise duty as per the said Clause of the exemption Notification. Before any adjudication proceedings were initiated, the appellants approached this Court questioning the validity of the Clause (4) of the said Notification. Incidentally, they also claimed that they are entitled for the benefit of exemption. While ...
Tag this Judgment!Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. V. Kasthuri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC441
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The Transport Corporation is the appellant which is challenging the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that no finding has been given regarding negligence by the learned Judge.2. The case of the appellant is that the bus had stopped at the Ethiraj College Stop and then after all the passengers boarded the bus, the conductor blew the whistle and only then the bus driver started the bus. At this juncture, the deceased whose legal heir the respondent attempting to climb the moving bus slipped and fell down and died.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant took me through the award passed. by the Tribunal and submitted that absolutely no finding has been given regarding negligence.4. While the Tribunal has given detailed reasoning for arriving at the quantum of compensation, it has failed to consider the basic issue that the liability to give compensation will not arise until the negligence is fixed on the Transport Corporation who is the appellant herein. The...
Tag this Judgment!G. Nagendra Devi and 3 Others Vs. Y. Mosses and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC508; 2003ACJ221; (2001)3MLJ36
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Claimants in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2074 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes) are the appellants in the above appeal. In respect of death of one G. Krishnamurthy in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 8/9.5.96 at 01.15 hours, wife, minor children and mother of the deceased have prayed for compensation of Rs.7,00,000. Second respondent therein insurance company filed counter statement disputing various averments made in the claim petition.2. The tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle has passed an award for Rs.3,22,200 with interest at 12% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In view of the fact that the rider of the motorcycle was not having licence, the tribunal restricted the award only against the owner of the motorcycle viz. the first respondent herein.3. Against t...
Tag this Judgment!A. Anthony Pitchai Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1653Mad
ORDER1. Aggrieved by G.O.(D) No.75, Labour and Employment Department, dated 1.2.1993 refusing to make a reference for adjudication by the Government, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(D) No.75, Labour and Employment Department, dated 1.2.1993 and letter No.14435/181/93-4, dated 2.2.1994, quash the same and direct the first respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication.2. In brief, the petitioner, a driver, working in the second respondent Corporation, was charged for his negligence for causing an accident on 11.8.89, when he was on duty in Bus No.7989 plying between Tirunelveli and Madurai route, near Thulukkupatti, by dashing against a boy, who sustained head injuries, with reference to which, the management issued a charged memo, framed charges, called for explanation and not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, held a domestic enquiry, found the petitioner guilty of the ch...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesan G. and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ985Mad
D. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the common award passed by the first respondent in Industrial Disputes Nos. 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 97 of 1992, dated May 31, 1993 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part II, Section 2, dated September 1, 1993 in so far as that portion of the award of the first respondent negativating the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement in service with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.2. The petitioners joined the service of the second respondent-mill on April 17, 1973. When the second respondent terminated the services of the three employees on August 18, 1985, the employees of the second respondent-mill went on strike from August 19, 1985. The strike ended on December 2, 1985 as per the advice of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras. Charge-memos were issued to all the 17 employees including the petitioners on August 21, 1985 and September 28, 1985 and were suspended as per Clau...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Vairavelu Vs. P. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ796
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2000 and made in R.C.A.No. 130 of 1996 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Maoras reversing the order dated 8.9.1994 and made in R.C.O.P.No. 268 of 1992 on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madra!2. The fsts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as fllows:- The Respondent herein who is the petitioner before the Rent Contro Court and appellant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, is thelandlord of the premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition nd the revision petitioner who is the respondent before the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the tenant of the sal premises on a monthly rent of Rs.228. The revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the period from September, 1991 to August, 1992. The pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Geetha Vs. T. Seeralan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC22
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The wife is the petitioner who wants transfer of the matrimonial O.P. from the Sub-Judge, Tindivanam to the Sub-Court, Periakulam. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 22.5.1996 at Thethanur village as per Hindu Law. A child was born to them, but the married life has not been pleasant. According to the petitioner, the respondent and his parents have been insulting and harassing her. The respondent is also not interested in maintaining her and her child. The respondent has now filed H.M.O.P. No. 75/1999 before the Sub-Judge-Tindivanam. She claims that it is very difficult for her to go all the way from Chinnamanur with her child to Tindivanam which is 1,100 kms. away, for every hearing. According to her, from 25.4.2000, she has been attending the hearing with her parents. According to her, the respondent is thereatening to kill her. According to her, she is very worried about the safety of her child and, therefore, wants transfer.2. A counter has ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »