Chennai Court July 2001 Judgments
S.V.S. Oil Mills Represented by Its Partner S.V. Chandrapandian Vs. S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC330(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. O.A. No. 324 of 2001 has been filed by S.V.S. Oil Mills, represented by its Partner S.V. Chandra Pandian against Rajkumar, trading as Nellai Agro Foods & S.V.S. Oil Mills for interim injunction restraining the respondents from manufacturing, marketing and advertising or offering sale or use the expression S.V.S. as his domain name or website in the electronic media or otherwise for selling their products Palmolein oil or refined edible oil or any kind or other food article using the trademark S.V.S. or trading style S.V.S. Oil Mills or any other cognate or similar goods as the goods of the applicant. O.A. No. 2580/2001 was filed by the respondent to vacate the interim injunction dated 11.4.2001 passed in O.A. No. 324/2001. For the sake of convenient, S.V.S. Oil Mills represented by its Partner S.V. Chandra Pandian shall hereinafter refer to as applicant and S.V.S. Rajkumar is referred to as respondent.2. The applicant herein has filed a suit for permanent injuncti...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ramanujam V. Vs. Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR605]; (2002)ILLJ109Mad; (2001)3MLJ350
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the petition under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The first respondent herein, management has preferred Writ Petition No. 16125 of 1994 challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dismissing their approval petition filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said writ petition was admitted on October 18, 1994 and interim stay was granted and the appellant/workman filed a petition to vacate the stay and also another petition under Section 17-B of the Act. After hearing both parties and after ascertaining the back-wages which comes to Rs. 2,04,000, the learned Judge made the stay absolute subject to the condition that the writ petitioner deposits a sum, of Rs. 2,04,000 within eight weeks from the date of his order. In the very same order, the learned Judge has directed, on such deposit being made, to inves...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ384Mad
D. Murugesan, J.1. The Management of Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited has filed this writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Madurai, dated January 7,1994, passed in I.D. No. 474 of 1991.2. The first respondent-union raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') before the Labour Officer,Virudhunagar, challenging the transfer of one K. Bhima Raja from the post of senior telephone operator to the post of clerk in the accounts department. The conciliation ended in failure and the same was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Madurai, by the Government in G.O. (D) No. 784, dated August 1, 1981. The Labour Court decided the dispute holding that the appropriate grade of K.S. Bhima Raja is to be determined from July 29, 1990 and that he should be given the post of accountant with all attendant benefits. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.3. I...
Tag this Judgment!Subramani P. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ432Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the employee of the judiciary praying therein for a writ of certiorari quashing the communication dated December 13, 1999 by the second respondent Registrar and directing the respondents to provide medical aid of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner. Following facts will highlight the controversy.2. Petitioner who was at the relevant time working as junior bailiff, was suffering from diabetes for a long time and on his condition becoming worse, he was admitted to J.M. Hospital, Trichy. It was diagnosed that his kidneys were affected and surgery had to be performed to save his life and accordingly two surgeries were performed; one on April 15, 1997 on the right kidney and on June 16, 1997 on the left kidney. These surgeries were performed in a private hospital.3. The State of Tamil Nadu had floated a scheme called 'Government Employees' Health Fund' by its order dated January 9, 1992. Under that, the Government employees were to receive the medical help fr...
Tag this Judgment!Rengasamy R. Vs. Amalraj A.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR80]; (2002)IVLLJ852Mad
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Notice of motion was ordered in the civil miscellaneous appeal and so the matter was taken up. The opposite party in the workmen's compensation claim is the appellant herein.2. The facts of the case are as follows;The respondent herein claiming to be a helper on daily wages earning a sum of Rs. 75 per day for more than three years had been engaged by the petitioner for contingency work like office maintenance, liaison, cleaning and painting work. According to the workman/ respondent in the course of such employment, the services of the petitioner was also used for work at respondent's residence. On November 14, 1995 at 12 noon when the respondent was white washing the house belonging to the petitioner, he fell down from the building and sustained grievous injuries. He was treated in the Government Hospital in Tiruchirapalli and became disabled and therefore, compensation of a sum of Rs 10,000 was claimed.3. The appellant herein denied that the respondent was a wor...
Tag this Judgment!State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Murugan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ670
N. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The State is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) were tried for the offence under Section 307, IPC and under Section 307 read with Section 109 IPC. They were acquitted by the trial Judge. Hence, this appeal by the State.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:--(a) P.W. 1 Sankaralingam, P.W. 2 Ramaih and P.W. 6 Paramasivam are brothers. They reside at Marugal Kurichi village. Accused 1 to 3 are also residing in the same village. Their house is situate very near to the house of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6. Respondents 1 and 2 are brothers.(b) On 2-10-1989 at about 5.00 p.m. Kannammal, the mother of P.Ws. 1 and 2, went to the corner of the street to collect water from the common water pipe. The third respondent's wife Manickam also came for taking water. While collecting water from the common pipe, there was a quarrel between Kannammal and Manickam, the wife of third respondent. P.W. 2 Ramaiah, who noticed this, went there and separated them and ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rengasamy Vs. A. Amalraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ351
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Notice of motion was ordered in the civil miscellaneous appeal and so the matter was taken up. The opposite party in the workmen's compensation claim is the appellant herein.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The respondent herein claiming to be a helper on daily wages earning a sum of Rs. 75 per day for more than three years had been engaged by the petitioner for contingency work like office maintenance, liaison, cleaning and painting work. According to the workman/respondent in the course of such employment, the services of the petitioner was also used for work at respondent's residence. On 14.11.1995 at 12 noon when the respondent was white washing the house belonging to the petitioner, he fell down from the building and sustained grievous injuries. He was treated in the Government Hospital in Tiruchirapalli and became disabled and therefore, compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,000 was claimed.3. The appellant herein denied that the respondent was a workman en...
Tag this Judgment!T. Shanmugam Vs. the Chairman, Madras Port Trust and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ416
V.S. Sirupurkar, J.1. The present writ appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In that writ petition, the appellant claimed quashing of the order promoting the second respondent and for a direction that he should be promoted instead of the second respondent. The following facts will be helpful to understand the controversy.2. Both the petitioner as well as the second respondent were serving as physiotherapists under the first respondent Madras Port Trust. While the petitioner entered the service somewhere in the year 1984, more particularly on 2.8.1984, the second respondent entered the service much before that i.e., somewhere in the year 1975. A scheme was floated by the Central Government vide order dated 16.10.1996, wherein it was proposed to give the notional promotions of one time measure to all such persons holding Class III and Class IV posts who had completed 15 years of service. The relevant Clause is as u...
Tag this Judgment!Manoharan R. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ850Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the award, dated November 25, 1994, in I.D. No. 98 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent to quash the same and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, back-wages and all attendant benefits.2. The short facts which are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was employed as a conductor on January 1, 1980. On July 17, 1983 he was apprehended by the second respondent and it was found that the petitioner tampered with the records of the Corporation, such as invoice sheet, ticket books by having altered the tickets of 0.75 paise denomination. The allegation was that Ticket No. Z-54984 to 54989 have not been accounted for and he has also altered the invoice sheet: By this method the petitioner misappropriated the money of the Corporation and caus...
Tag this Judgment!Vst Industries Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary to Govt. of India (Rev)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT30(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. There was a corrigendum issued, by which, it was directed that the word 'not' in the order dated 5-3-1991 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the last paragraph should be read as 'now'. That corrigendum is challenged in W.P. No. 18864 of 1993. Mr. Sashidharan does not press this writ petition and agrees that the word 'not' is not correct, but should have been 'now'. W.P. No. 18864 of 1993 is, therefore, disposed of.2. The matters, however, do not stop there. Unfortunately, when the word 'now' is substituted in place of the word 'not' then the order dated 5-3-1991 becomes a remand order. Under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, there cannot be a remand, and there can only be the annulment or modification. Realising this, both the parties urge that in order to save time and in order to put the matters on right track, the authority, who wrote the order dated 5-3-1991 being the joint Secretary to the Government of India, should himself...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »