Chennai Court July 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Management of Bhavanji Mills Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC141; [2000(86)FLR516]; (2001)IILLJ1198Mad; (2001)3MLJ50
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The facts are rather interesting. The management of Bhavanji Mills ran a textile mill. It was established somewhere in the year 1982. The provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, hereinafter referred to as E. S. I. Act, were extended to that area by a notification dated March 27, 1986. One B. Srinivasan joined this factory on December 7, 1987. Unfortunately, on December 17, 1987 he died in an accident. Before his death, however, the authorities under the E.S.I. Act had issued a notice on February 24, 1987 by which it was informed to the mill that the said establishment is covered under the E. S.I. Act with effect from April 1, 1986 and even a code number was allotted, it being 512852-11.2. After B. Srinivasan died, his father, the second respondent herein, filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act on Januar...
Gopalakrishnan R. Vs. Management of Binny Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ336Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The present contempt application has been filed to punish the respondent under the Contempt of Court Act for its alleged wilful negligence and for not obeying the order of this Court passed in W.A. No. 1677 of 1997, dated March 30, 2001.2. In our considered view, no case has been made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent. By judgment, dated March 30, 2001, made in W.A. No. 1677 of 1997, while allowing the writ appeal in part, we have modified the Award of the Labour Court. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the appellant workman and in the writ appeal, the said direction has been modified and in lieu of reinstatement, we have directed the respondent-management to pay Rs. 2,00,000 towards all claim whatsoever. We have also granted two months time to the respondent-management to pay the said sum. It is in effect on award of the Labour Court as has been modified by this Court.3. To enforce the award, definite procedures have been provi...
Rajammal and ors. Vs. Selvi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ315
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The only question here is whether the appellate Court could remand the suit to decide the sufficiency of court-fees that was paid without any objection or order in regard to this issue. The 1st respondent filed suit for declaration and injunction. The value of the suit was stated to be Rs. 2,705.50 and the suit was filed before the District Munsif, Vedasandur. The appellants herein who were the defendants did not raise any objection relating to court-fee. The suit was dismissed on a detailed consideration of the materials before the Court. The following three issues alone were framed:(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration that she is the owner of the suit property?(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?(3) To what other reliefs, is the plaintiff entitled to?2. The 1st respondent herein filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge at Dindigul. The learned Judge formulated the following issues for considerati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›