Chennai Court August 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.
Dharmapuri Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Presiding Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR69]; (2003)ILLJ169Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. W.P. Nos. 9937 and 11051 to 11057 of 1994 are filed by the Management challenging the award dated January 19, 1993 made in C.P. Nos. 109/92, 114/92, 113/ 92, 115/92. 116/92, 117/92, 119/92 and 120/92 made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ordering for equal pay for equal work to the second respondent in the respective writ petitions, who are admittedly working as Junior Bank Inspectors as that of the other Junior Bank Inspectors who are governed under a settlement entered into by the petitioner-Management under Section 12(3) of the Act.2. W.P. No. 10561 of 1995 is filed by the workman challenging the dismissal of the claim petition made under Section 33-C(2) on the ground of laches.3. Ms. Rita Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the management in these writ petitions, contends that equal pay for equal work cannot be claimed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act unless the amount due to the workman is determine...
Kalivaradan P. Vs. Presiding Officer, Ii Additional District Judge and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ443Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as a daily rated employee in the second respondent Board at Pondicherry and he was sent for training in Footwear Course at Calcutta from March, 1984 to August, 1984. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Manager (Leather) at Leather Goods Emporium, Pondicherry from August 28, 1984 to April 22, 1988. On April 22, 1988 the petitioner was forced to handover charge to one M. Palanivelu and no alternative employment was given to the petitioner. Petitioner made representation to the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service but he did not receive any reply. Therefore, the petitioner issued a lawyer's notice on October 11, 1988 requesting reinstatement with continuity of service. The second respondent replied through the lawyer's notice dated November 3, 1988 stating that the petitioner was transferred to Yanam from Pondicherry on April 21, 1988 and that the petitioner was orally informed about the same. Since the petition...
M. Kanniyalal Vs. S. Nateswaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ379
ORDER1. The appellant is one of the creditors in the insolvency proceedings in respect of the first respondent. In I.P.No.5 of 1990 an interim receiver was appointed on 1.2.1990. At this stage an application was filed under Section 4 and 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for directions to the interim receiver toinspect the movables in the premises at No.29, Muthuranga Mudali Street, Erode, which was occupied by the insolvent, namely, the first respondent as a tenant and to take an inventory of the same. This application was ordered by the Additional Sub-Judge, Erode, who also gave a direction that after the inventory is taken the movables shall be sold and the proceeds should be deposited to the credit of the said I.P. and to handover vacant possession to the owners. This order was passed in view of the fact that the petition premises was a rented premises and the owner had filed R.C.O.P.No.62 of 1990 for willful default and the monthly rent was Rs. 1,250. Therefore, the continuance o...
Sellmore Advertising (P) Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Defence Estate Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad250
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W. P. No. 15733 of 1995, the writ petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from disturbing his peaceful possession of the hoardings in the following three places :-'i) At the Junction of G.S.T. Road and opposite to Jyothi Theatre and Monument -40 X 20;ii) At the junction of G.S.T. Road and opposite to Jyothi Theatre & Monument - 40 X 20 ; andiii) At the Junction of G.S.T. Road and opposite to DCM Toyota showroom and Rudhra Road - 40 X 20.'2. It is submitted by the learned counsel on either side that the case and counter case in W.P. No. 15035 of 1992 and W. P. No, 14960 of 1992 are identical as in the above writ petition No. 15733 of 1992, the difference being the location and number of hoardings erected and the same may be disposed of by a common order. Hence these two writ petitions are tagged along with W. P. No. 15733 of 1992 and are disposed of by this common order.3. Heard Mr. Thirumuruganandam, learned counsel a...
Management of Eagle Flasks Industries Limited Vs. Presiding Officer an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR907]; (2002)IILLJ973Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent in I.D. No. 964 of 1992 dated December 12, 1994.2. According to the petitioner/ management, they are involved in manufacturing of vaccum flasks and refills and the second respondent was working as a turner from October 1, 1983, on a salary of Rs. 750. He was provided with all incidental benefits. The petitioner-firm used to transfer the employees from one branch to another in accordance with the necessity arising in the respective branches. The second respondent while joining the firm had accepted the condition that his services are liable to be transferred from one branch to another. He was, originally engaged by the management as a trainee turner by order dated October 1, 1983. His services were subsequently confirmed and with effect from October 1, 1984, he was appointed as turner. During 1991, efficient and trained turners were required at ...
S. Jayaseelan Vs. State by Spf, C.B.i.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ732
M. Karpagavindyagam, J.1. Jayaseelan, the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Special Court convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 409, I.P.C., two years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 477-A, I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has preferred this appeal.2. The gravamen of the charges is that during the period between 1987-1988, the appellant being a Cashier in Indian Overseas Bank, Sedhuvalai Branch, who was entrusted with the money of Rs. 32,552/-by the loanees by way of repayment, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount by not crediting the same in the loan accounts, even though the appellant made relevant entries in the passbooks kept by the loanees.3. To prove the above charges under Sections 409 and 477-A, I.P.C. and Se...
B. Imtiaz Ahanied Vs. G. Banumathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ142
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 586 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli is the appellant in the above appeal. In respect of grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 28.8.1993, he filed the said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000. The claim petition was resisted by the insurance company, respondent No. 2 therein by filing counter statement. The Tribunal after considering oral and documentary evidence and after holding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry MSR 8253 and that the claimant sustained serious injuries, passed an award for Rs. 5,00,000 with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition till date of deposit. Regarding the disallowed claim, claimant has preferred the present appeal.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Though the respondents were d...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sakthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ746; (2001)3MLJ332
P. Sathasivam, J.1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. is the appellant.2. For the death of one Kasi in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 18.3.96, wife and children of the deceased have prayed for a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 before the Tribunal. The said petition was resisted by the insurance company, respondent No. 2 therein, by filing counter statement. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of a van TTA 5801 belonging to the respondent No. 1 therein, passed an award for Rs. 5,83,700 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Against the said award, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.4. The respondent No. 6 owner of the van though duly served notice from this court, has not chosen to contest the appeal by engaging a Counsel.5. Learned Counsel appearing f...
K.M. Manoharan (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Kandasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ496
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company of the trailer and the owner of the trailer. The accident happened in this manner:2. On 1.10.1994 at 10.30 a.m., one Duraian who is the son of the respondents 1 and 2 was travelling in the trailer bearing Regn. No. TNW 9445 for loading sugarcane. The trailer was attached to the tractor. The trailer belonged to the deceased 1st appellant whose legal representatives have now been impleaded and was insured by the 2nd appellant. The tractor belonged to the 4th respondent and was driven by the 3rd respondent and was insured by the 5th respondent. The manner in which the accident took place is not in dispute and Ex.P-1 is the F.I.R. It is seen therefrom that when the tractor-trailer was going round the bend in Soogalur road, the deceased Duraiyan was attempting to place a stone on the left side rear wheel of the tractor. At that time, the driver, not noticing that Duraian was behind the wheels, started the tractor rashly and ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)462; [2002]254ITR558(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue contends that the mobile crane is a road transport vehicle and, therefore, does not qualify for the additional depreciation provided under Section 32(1)(iia), proviso (b), of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year is 1985-86.2. The assessee's claim for depreciation was under Clause (b) of the proviso which refers to 'any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) incomputing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' of any one previous year'.3. The mobile crane that was owned by the assessee and used by its lessee during the assessment year 1985-86 was a hydraulic crane, which was used in quarrying granite blocks in the mines. The fact that the crane is capable of lifting weights and carrying them over a distance as also the fact that the crane is capable of motion, being mounted on wheels, does not take away its esse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »