Chennai Court March 2002 Judgments
K.S. Ramaratnam Vs. the Principal Judge, Labour Court, Madras and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR431]
ORDER1. This writ petition is for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in I.D.No.1109/91 dated 5.5.1994 to quash the same.2. The petitioner was an employee under the second respondent. He was working in the company in the Package Division. He joined as Godown-in-charge originally. After a long number of years, on 31.7.1991, the second respondent issued a letter, terminating the services of the petitioner. He was not informed about the closure of Package Section earlier. Therefore, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court in I.D.No.1109 of 1991. The Labour Court, after recording the evidence and considering the arguments of both sides, passed an award, holding that the termination of the petitioner was legal, and therefore, this writ petition has been filed, challenging the award of the Labour Court.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the termination of the agreement between the s...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Fin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ397
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules which deals with alteration of date of birth in Sub-clauses (b) and (c) thereof provide thus:49(b): After a person has entered service, an application to alter the date of his birth as entered in the official records shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry into service. Such an application shall be made to the authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the applicant at the time of his application and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (a).(c) Any application received after five years after entry into service or any application, which is not supported by entries in S.S.L.C., School, College or University records, birth extract from records of local bodies or military discharge certificates, shall be summarily rejected.'2. The applicant before the Tribunal, who is the respondent before us,...
Tag this Judgment!The Management Good Samaritan Rural Development Project, Tirupattur Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR257]; (2003)ILLJ357Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in P.G.A. No.37 of 1997 on the file of the second respondent dated 10.3.1998 and quash the same. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not applicable to the petitioner management since it is not a commercial establishment; that the petitioner management was started in the year 1978 by an American Missionary and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975; that the above project is a charitable organisation aimed to serve without any consideration of caste, creed or religion lending its medical aid for eye care, rural health, medical aid to tribal welfare, child care, evangelism, care of orphans, handicapped and also carrying out rehabilitation programme, relief nutrition and immunization programmes for poor and needy in and around Tirupattur Town, Vellore Di...
Tag this Judgment!Anbalagan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC256
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Anbalagan, the appellant herein was convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 2(b)(i) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 in default to undergo R.I. for one year. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.2. According to the prosecution, on 16.12.1997 at about 11.45 a.m., the appellant was in possession of Ganja weighing about 1.5 kgs. in white plastic gunny bag. The contraband was seized and he was arrested for the offence. After the investigation was over, the charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(1) of the NDPS Act.3. The charges were framed on 6,3.1998 for the said offence alongwith Section 3(1) of NDPS Act since he was previously convicted for the similar offence. When the charge was explained to him on 6.3.1998, he pleaded 'not guilty', though he admitted that he was previously convicted for the similar offence. Therefore, the date 20.4.1998 was fixed for...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaratnam K.S. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ1166Mad
A.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition is for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in I.D. No. 1109 of 1991, dated May 5, 1994, and to quash the same.2. The petitioner was an employee under the second respondent. He was working in the company in the package division. He joined as godown-in-charge originally. After a long number of years, on July 31, 1991, the second respondent issued a letter, terminating the services of the petitioner. He was not informed about the closure of the package Section earlier. Therefore, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court in I.D. No. 1109 of 1991. The Labour Court, after recording the evidence and considering the arguments of both sides, passed an award, holding that the termination of the petitioner was legal, and therefore, this writ petition has been filed, challenging the award of the Labour Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the terminatio...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., Madurai Rep. by the Managing Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR424]; (2002)IIILLJ765Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The writ petition is for issue of writ of Certiorari. The petitioner is the Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., The second respondent was appointed as a Conductor with effect from 1.4.83. On 8.10.1983, while he was performing his duty in the bus bearing Registration No. TML 5606 at 3.40 p.m. in the afternoon trip from Sivakasi to Thiruvannamalai, the Checking Inspector boarded the bus at Thiruvannamalai and found that the second respondent issued only 5 tickets of 50 paise to five passengers travelling from Sivakasi to Thiruvannamalai, even though he had collected Rs.7.50 at the rate of Rs.1.50/- per ticket. Therefore, there is misappropriation of Rs.2.50 by the second respondent. In view of this misconduct, a charge memo was issued on 22.11.1983. An enquiry was conducted on 10.3.1984. The enquiry officer filed his report on 29.3.1984 holding that the charges have been proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was given on 24.5.1984. The second respondent also...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Leela and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: III(2003)ACC694; 2003ACJ1347
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The respondent No. 2 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar, at Srivilliputtur is the appellant herein. The legal representatives of the deceased Vijayakumar, who was a contractor-cum-quarry owner-cum-agriculturist, have filed a claim petition for compensation for the death of the said Vijayakumar.2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows:The late Vijayakumar was riding a motor cycle along with his brother on 18.3.1999 at 7.30 p.m. on the side of Sankaran Koil Road at Rajapalayam. At that time the respondent No. 5 drove the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 74-A 9447 rashly and negligently with high speed and without observing the rules of the road in the same direction and dashed against the bike from behind, which was driven by the deceased. The deceased was thrown off the bike and he sustained grievous injuries and was taken to hospital in an auto and he died on the way to hospital. Claiming...
Tag this Judgment!P. Arumugham and anr. Vs. Murugesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ26
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The suit property in both the appeals is one and the same and it is a vacant site of 28-1/2 ft. east - west and 40-1/2 ft. north-south. The said property was purchased by one Rathnammal under Ex.B-11, dated 20.8.1956. The said Rathnammal sold the property to the 1 st defendant in O.S. No. 42 of 1988, who is none other than her daughter-in-law, under Ex.B-1 dated 14.11.1968. Thereafter the said Maragatham (1st defendant in O.S. No. 42 of' 1988) agreed to sell the property to the plaintiffs in the said suit, the respondents 1 and 2 herein under the agreement dated 22.11.1974 marked as Ex. A-3.2. Treating the sale deed Ex.B-1 dated 14.11.1968 as a mortgage by conditional sale, the appellants who are the sons of the said Rathnammal and brothers of 1st defendant, filed the suit in O.S. No. 225 of 1988 for redemption of mortgage created under Ex.B-1. To enforce Ex.A-3 agreement, respondents 1 and 2 filed the another suit in O.S. No. 42 of 1988. They have been impleaded ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rayen Vs. Seyed Ali Fathima
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ102
ORDERV. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The tenant who lost before the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent filed R.C.O.P. for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b)of the Act 18 of 1960.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petition mentioned building belongs to the petitioner. The respondent is the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 500. The respondent paid rent; upto the end of December, 1990 and thereafter, he has wilfully defaulted to pay the rent inspite of repeated demands. The respondent is in arrears of rent from January, 1991 to 1992 for seventeen months to the tune of Rs. 8,500. Further, the petition mentioned building is required for immediate purpose of demolition and to erect a new building on the site. The building is an old one. It requires immediate demolition. Besides, the petitioner wants to augment the income by putting up a new building. The petitioner undertake that the work of demolishing of the building will b...
Tag this Judgment!Mooka Gowder Vs. V. Hamsa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ127
ORDERK.R. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. This Revision is filed assailing the order made in E.A.No. 4 of 1998 dated 24.6.1998 for restitution of the property, which was given in favour of the petitioner herein pursuant to a petition in E.P.No.54 of 1997. 2. To comprehend the dispute to be resolved in the Revision Petition, it would be necessary to state minimum facts. The petitioner herein filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent herein and the suit was decreed on 18.11.1996. The appeal filed against the decree also ended against the respondent by the order of the appellate Court dated 4.9.1997. Not satisfied with this order passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the appellate Court, the matter was agitated in Second Appeal No. 1788 of 1997 before this Court. This Court admitted the Second Appeal on 16.12.1997 and granted interim stay of the execution of the decree in favour of the respondent herein. In the meantime, the petitioner herein launched execution petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »