Chennai Court March 2002 Judgments
Ttbl Tea and Technologies Limited, Formerly Called Tamil Nadu Tea Brok ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ65
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent dated 28-11-2001, appointing respondents 4 to 6 as Tea Brokers in respect of tea factories of TANTEA, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to quash the said order on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 24289 of 2001 is briefly stated hereunder:- According to them, their company was established in 1984 by orders of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 338 dated 4-4-1986 and G.O.Ms.No. 1107 dated 23-10-87. The sole objective in formation of the petitioner company was to provide the second respondent, Public Undertaking with specialized Tea Broking services. Further, the petitioner was assured by the first respondent that fair amounts of teas will be given to the petitioner for the purpose of broking. The petitioner company therefore was specially formed with technical experts, skilled personnel and consultants only to provide the second respondent with necessary expertise and effect...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vincent Paul Vs. the Chief Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ15
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer in the main writ petition is for certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Charge No. 15 of 2001, dated 30.8.2001 and quash the same.2. The prayer in the writ miscellaneous petition, W.M.P. No. 28223 of 2001, is to stay all further proceedings in charge No. 15/2001, dated 30.8.2001 of the second respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition. In this writ miscellaneous petition, on 12.10.2001, D. Murugesan, J. on being prima facie satisfied, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena , wherein it has been held, 'that where criminal as well as disciplinary actions were grounded on the same facts, the stay of disciplinary action would be justified', granted stay of further proceedings in charge No. 15 of 2001, dated 30.8.2001, of the second respondent pending further orders.3. W.M.P. No. 32054 of 2001 has been f...
Tag this Judgment!R. Anitha, Vs. Ramakrishnan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ813
ORDER1. It is brought to the notice of the court that service of notice on the respondents 1 to 3 is pending. In order to avoid the avoidable delay and in view of the fact that the available materials would be suffice to give a disposal to this revision, the following order is made.2. This revision has arisen from the order of the learned District Munsif dismissing an interlocutory application filed by the petitioners herein seeking for the impleadment of the respondents 4 to 7 herein as parties to the proceedings in I.A.No.1022/95.3. It was a suit filed by the petitioners herein against the respondents 1 to 3 herein seeking for partition of the suit property. As could be well seen from the available materials on hand, a preliminary decree was passed in the said suit on 18.8.1995. Subsequently, final decree application in I.A.No.1022/95 was filed by the plaintiffs, wherein the trial court had appointed Mr. V. Ponnusamy, Advocate as a Commissioner to divide the suit properties into four...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of D.A.T.C. Ltd. Now Renamed as Metropolitan Transport ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ61
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is the appellant herein. An Award in I.D. No.388 of 1995 was passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras holding that the removal of the second respondent herein from the services of the Corporation on 12.9.1994 is improper and that he is entitled for being appointed as Helper or Store Keeper with effect from 12.9.1994. A learned single Judge of the High Court has confirmed the Award and dismissed the writ petition. The appeal is against this order.2. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder :The second respondent herein was employed as a driver with the Corporation. While he was on duty on 5.11.1993, he suffered certain injuries and consequently, he lost his hearing ability. On the basis of the medical report finding that there is a total sensory neural hearing loss in the left hear and sensory neural loss in the right ear and that he is not suitable for continuance i...
Tag this Judgment!N.A. Abdul Rahim and Razia Begam Vs. A.M.K. Mariam Bibi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ836
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Heard both sides.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1999 made in A.S.No.496 of 1985 on the file of this Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.7.1984 made in O.S.No.202 of 1977 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.3. For convenience, parties are arrayed as per their rank in the suit.4.1. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are grand daughters of the first plaintiff through her only daughter N.A.Ahamed Nachia, and defendants 1 and 3 in the suit are the sons of the first plaintiff; the second defendant being the daughter of the first defendant is the grand daughter of the first plaintiff; and the fourth defendant is the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, a statutory body. 4.2. The plaintiffs laid the above suit for directions to (a) the defendants to deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff within a date fixed by this Hon'ble Court, failing which putting plaintiffs in possession of the same by due process of th...
Tag this Judgment!R. Karithimma Naidu Vs. R. Venkatrama Gounder,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ827
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both sides.2.1. For the purpose of convenience the parties are arrayed as per ranks in the suit.2.2. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1999 in A.S.No.715 of 1987 of the learned Single Judge reversing the judgment and decree dated 13.7.1987 in O.S.No.387 of 1984 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, filed by the appellant herein for recovery of possession of the suit property, damages for a sum of Rs.15000/- from the defendants 1 and 2 for their use and occupation of the properties,and for future damages at Rs.5000/- per year from the date of filing the suit, under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2.3. The suit property consists of two items. Item No.1 of the suit property is the portion at Door No.10/6, (New No.1/16), Pillaiyarkoil Street, Kattoor, Coimbatore and Item No.2 of the suit property is the located at Door No.91, Mall Mill Road, Coimbatore.2.4. The case of the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Consolidated Agencies a Partnership Firm Rep. by Its Partner A.L. Laks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad396; (2002)2MLJ56
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 29.3.2001 made in Application No.3713 of 1998 in C.S.No.87 of 1998 revoking the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to the plaintiff/appellant herein in Application No.304 of 1998 on 2.2.1998 to file the suit in C.S.No.87 of 1998. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the suit.3.1. The plaintiff/appellant herein filed C.S.No.87 of 1998 to direct the defendants/respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs.12,43,657.30 and for a declaration that the plaintiff has no dues payable as against the defendants, based on the Consignment Stockist agreement dated 1.10.1985.3.2. According to the plaintiff, they are entitled for the suit amount towards commission, discount, freight charges, etc., based on the consignment stockist agreement dated 1.10.1985, entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant in the suit. Even though the said agreement was said to have been fo...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal @ Valliatha, Vs. Angammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad292
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1996 made in A.S.No.179 of 1982 reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1981 in O.S.No.88 of 1977 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode. 2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the suit. 3. The appellants are the legal representatives of the first defendant; and respondents 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 1977 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode, wherein, the plaintiff sought for specific performance to direct the first defendant therein to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff therein with regard to the 'A' schedule property, based on an agreement dated 19.1.1975 entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant therein; and for payment of Rs.11,132.95 with interest, which was said to have been paid by the plaintiff to the Land Development Bank, Kangayam towards...
Tag this Judgment!Manickam Vs. S.A. Ramaswamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ11
P.D. Dinakaran,J.1. Heard both sides.2.1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2000 in Appeal No.773 of 1985 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1111 of 1979 dated 6.5.1985 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, for specific performance of an agreement dated 2.4.1976.2.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in the suit. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit.3.1. The plaintiff laid O.S.No.1111 of 1979 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2.4.1976, alleging that he entered into the said agreement with the defendant and his son one Palanimuthu for sale consideration of Rs.80,000.00 and paid a sum of Rs.6,000.00 on 2.4.1976 and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.74,000.00 at the time of registration of the sale deed.3.2. Admittedly, on the date of agreement, viz., 2.4.1976, a Second Appeal No.1606 of 1973 was pending with regard to the suit property against the judgment and decree in ...
Tag this Judgment!Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam, Rep. by Its Managing Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ83
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), who were the defendants in the suit and respondents in the writ petition are the appellants herein.2. One P.N. Karuppaiyan, plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 178 of 1988 in the District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai was an employee with Sri Rama Vilas Bus Service Limited, which was taken over by the Corporation, as a result of which the said Karuppaiyan was absorbed in the services of the appellant Corporation with continuity of service. The employee, while he was in his service with S.R.V.S., had declared his date of birth as 23.3.1930. In the official records of the Corporation also, his date of birth was entered as 23.3.1930. The Standing Orders for the employees of the Corporation, which came into force on 30.11.1976, provided for retirement of employees on their attaining the age of 58 years. The said employee was intimated that he would be superannuated on 31.3.1988 by the intimation ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »