Chennai Court August 2001 Judgments
K. Ramakrishnan (Died) and ors. Vs. Siddhammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad241
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1985 rendered in O.S. No. 518 of 1983 by the Court of Subordinate Judge. Coimbatore seeking to set aside the said Judgment and decree in so far as the decree relates to directing the deceased first appellant to deliver vacant possession of part of the suit property in his possession as tenant and further seeking interest at 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the date of suit as on 30-11-1983 till the date of realisation and for costs.2. Tracing the history of the above Appeal Suit, the deceased first appellant has filed the suit in O.S. No. 518 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore praying to pass a decree directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 18% p.a. and for costs on averments such as that the suit property originally belonged to one Rangammal; that on 28-8-1954, she executed a deed of settlement in favou...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Muthish Chettiar Vs. Inspector General of Registration, Madras an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad265
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Inspector General of Registration, first respondent, calling upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty on the market value of the property on the footing that the same shall be considered as a conveyance. 3. Brief narration of facts is necessary. The petitioner had purchased the disputed property under a registered sale deed dated 7-5-1967. Subsequently a tenant was inducted. On the death of the tenant, the leasehold interest was surrendered by the widow on consideration of Rs. 20,000/- and this was purported to be a written document dated 10-7-1991. Said document was submitted for registration paying stamp duty of Rs. 600/- apparently on the footing that Article 55 of the Indian Stamp Act was applicable. Without completing the process of registration, the petitioner was called upon to pay stamp duty on the market value and similarly he was also called u...
Tag this Judgment!Ezaz Tanning Co. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR389]; (2002)ILLJ506Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking to quash the Government Order in G.O. Ms. 2D No. 19, Labour and Employment Department dated August 21, 1990, wherein the minimum wages payable to the workmen engaged in footwear making industry was included.2. It is stated that though the Government Order is not applicable to the petitioner concerned as it is not engaged in footwear making industry and it is only engaged in manufacturing leather garments, the authorities had frequently been calling upon the petitioner to comply with the order relating to payment of minimum wages.3. It is not necessary to decide the question relating to the validity of the Government Order as the petitioner's industry is not covered by the Government Order. In the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, by G.O. Ms. No. 2367, Labour, dated November 14, 1986, the, employment in the footwear making industry was included and subsequently by G.O. Ms. No. 2545, dated November 25, 1986, the Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Halda Service Centre Vs. Presiding Officer, Ii Addl. Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ136Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The members of the 2nd respondent union filed a petition before the conciliation officer as against the non employment of 22 workmen by the writ petitioner management. The writ petitioner management filed a reply disputing the claim. The conciliation officer submitted a failure report. Thereafter, the dispute was referred to the 1st respondent for adjudication on the issue as to whether the non employment of the members of the 2nd respondent union on November 23, 1987 is justified or not. The Labour Court adjudicated upon the dispute in I.D. No. 496 of 1988 and found reasonableness in the dispute and accordingly directed reinstatement of the workmen with back wages. It is against the said award, the present writ petition has been filed.2. Mr. S. Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner management would challenge the said award on four grounds namely (1) the petitioner is a partnership firm and is a dealer for spare parts of Halda typewriters. The petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Oyya thevar Vs. Munia thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ579
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 29.1.1999 made in I.A.No. 610 of 1999 in O.S.No. 197 of 1997 by the Court of District Munsif, Manamadurai, thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein who is a third party to the suit proceedings, under Order 3, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying to permit him to conduct the suit for and on behalf of the second defendant, as his Power of Attorney Agent, accepting the General Power of Attorney executed by the second defendant, in his favour.2. The petitioner would allege in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the second defendant has executed a general power of attorney dated 16.4.1998 in favour of the petitioner, to act on his behalf, to sign the affidavit, statement, etc. and thereby praying to permit him to act on behalf of the second defendant in the suit, accepting the general power of attorney executed by the second defendant.3. In the counter...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Presiding Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ589Mad; (2001)3MLJ548
ORDERD. Murugesan, J. 1. The management of TiruttaniCo-operative Sugar Mills Limited,Thiruvalangadu, Chengai Anna District, is thewrit petitioner. The second respondent is theTiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills EmployeesUnion, Thiruvalangadu, Chengai-AnnaDistrict, represented by its Secretary. The writpetitioner is referred to as the management andthe second respondent is referred to as theUnion, in this order. 2. The Union submitted a charter of demands on August 21, 1989 to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) listing out 18 demands. One of the demands was that Promotion Policy should be formulated and the petitioner/management should stop giving promotions in its discretion. The said demand was made on the ground that about 395 workers were appointed as daily rated by the, management during the year 1985 and they were appointed without reference to the employment exchange. There were 300 posts vacant, for which the members of the Union could be promoted as per the seni...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Registrar, Central Administrative Tr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ941Mad; (2001)2MLJ110
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, which has held that there was no evidence at all on which to impose the penalty that has been imposed on the second respondent-workman who was charged with having organised an agitation on March 27, 1993 in front of Railway engine attached to the train and prevented its movement when it was at the Thanjavur station, the workman being an employee of the Railways whose place of work was at Kumbakonam.2. In the reply to the show-cause notice that the workman gave before the commencement of the enquiry, he did not assert that he had not gone to Thanjavur, that he was not present there at that time or that and on account of the agitation, its movement was not delayed. All that he did do in his reply was to pick holes in the depositions that had earlier been given in a preliminary enquiry, and he rested his case only on the alleged failure on the part of some of the witnesses to identify him, and claimed...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Sree Venkateswara Industries No. 417 (21 Phase) Sidc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC754; (2001)3MLJ264
ORDER1. This writ petition is the classic example of the abuse of Court's process. A few facts would be necessary to understand the controversy.2. An accident occurred in the premises of the petitioner Shri Venkateswara Industries. That was during the course of employment, or atleast that is the case of the respondent who on the basis of that accident, filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. He complained that he had lost his right hand in the accident. The accident is admitted. Be that as it may, during the course of the enquiry on 15.12.92, it was found that the concerned employer did not turn up. The matter was proceeded ex parte and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded the compensation of Rs.59,120 on that very day by passing the order on merits. In that, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner also considered the nature of the industry, the salary earned by the workman and the evidence left by the workman who had examined himself as P.W....
Tag this Judgment!S. Samiyullah Vs. Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Mak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad150
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This suit has been filed for payment of Rs. 3,65,103.50 with interest at 18% p.a. from the date thereof till the date of payment in full and for arrest and sale of the vessel m.v. Makar [Formerly m.v. Eagle II) in the Port of Vizag all Its gears, tools, tackles, hinders, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture and paraphernalia towards the suit claim, interest and for costs.2. Plaint averments are as follows : The plaintiff was carrying on business as Ship Chandler. The headquarters of the business of the plaintiff is at Madras. On 25-1-96, the plaintiff received orders at Madras for supply of ship stores and provisions to the vessel m.v. Eagle II then, due to call at Port at Vizag. For the said order the plaintiff arranged for supply to the vessel at the Port of Vizag shop stores and provisions between 27-1 -96 and 3-2-96 for a total value of US $ 8416.60. The plaintiff requested the defendant to remit the said amount in his account with the Standard Chartered Bank,...
Tag this Judgment!Augustine and anr. Vs. Kunjamma Kuriakose and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad480
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. The suit has been filed for pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as damages for the wrong done and for the fraud committed by the defendant's to the plaintiffs and for costs. 2. Plaint averments are as follows : The first plaintiff is the father of the second plaintiff. He states that the mother of the defendant had arranged for the marriage of her son with his daughter which was per-formed at Loyala College Chappel, Madras-31 on 18-8-96. The first plaintiff states that none of the elders who participated in the marriaged stated about the impotent and physical debility of the 2nd defendant; that the 2nd defendant was avoiding being in 2nd -plaintiffs company; that the 2nd plaintiff thought that since it was an arranged marriage and till she gets to know the 2nd defendant, that things would change and their love and affection would blossom and automatically the mariage would be consummated. Even though days and months passed, the pattern of behaviour of the 2nd defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »