Chennai Court April 2002 Judgments

K. Jayalakshmi Vs. the Principal, Arulmighu Palaniyandavar Women Polyt ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ455

ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.3.1995 whereunder the third respondent's services were regularised with effect from 10.1.1985. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Instructor in Mathematics in the first respondent College on 11.6.1982. The files produced by the first respondent show that this appointment was made by a resolution of the Selection Committee of the first respondent College. The petitioner's appointment was subject to confirmation of her probation of two years of continuous service or three years from the date of joining of the duty. The post next higher to the post of Instructor is Associate Lecturer. For direct recruitment as Associate Lecturer, two years' experience as an Instructor is required and for the direct recruitment of the post of Lecturer, five years experience as an instructor is required. 3. In 1983, an interview was called for the post of Lecturer in Mathematics, the qua...

P. Velu Vs. A. Antony Ammal and Thiru A. Chandran, Deputy Commissioner ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2004ACJ225; (2002)2MLJ490

ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The present revision has been preferred under Art. 227 of The Constitution of India seeking for transfer of W.C.No.22 of 1998 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, the second respondent herein to the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Tirunelveli.2. According to the petitioner the approach of the second respondent is unfair, unlawful, unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of the Workman's Compensation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the first respondent under section 22 of The Workmen's Compensation Act since the accident in question took place at Tirunelveli, outside the jurisdiction of the second respondent, and the first respondent is ordinarily residing at Thuraiyur, Tirunelveli. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli alone has the jurisdiction to try the dispute.3. It is contended that the first respo...

V. Muthukrishnan Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madra ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ563

ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition, seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in letter No. Exe.Eng./P/MN/VA/K3/A2590/95 dated 11.12.1995 and to quash the same.2. The petitioner in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition has stated that he is a small farmer, owning lands in S.454/3 in Kezhapasali Village, Manamadurai Taluq. The petitioner was cultivating his lands by drawing water from a well by conventional methods. As a boon to agriculturists, the State of Tamil Nadu brought out a scheme, whereby if an agriculturist pays a fixed sum of Rs.10,000/-, he would be given electricity connection; provided he owns a land and a well. The petitioner satisfies those requirements and gave an application to the second respondent on 23.9.1995, furnishing the relevant details. The said application was acknowledged by the Department and as per the terms of the schem...

Vummidi Bangaru Chetty (P) Ltd. Vs. Spencer and Co. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ326

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. Petition against the order and decretal order dated 25.09.2001 made in M.P.No.250 of 2001 in E.P.No.539 of 2000 in R.C.O.P.NO.2037 of 1998 on the file of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The challenge in this revision is to the order of the execution Court dated 25.09.2001 in M.P.No.250 of 2001 in E.P.No.539 of 2000 in R.C.O.P.NO.2037 of 1998, rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 47 C.P.C. to dismiss E.P.No.539 of 2000, on the ground that the decree of eviction granted in R.C.O.P. was a nullity. 2. Twin questions arise for consideration in this revision, namely, as to whether this court lacks jurisdiction to deal with this revision and also as to the correctness of the order impugned in this revision. 3. As the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this revision has been raised, it has become incumbent upon me to deal with the said question in the first instance before going into the question about the...

P. Velu Vs. A. Antony Ammal and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: II(2004)ACC500

E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The present revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for transfer of W.C. No. 22 of 1998 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, the respondent No. 2 herein to the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli.2. According to the petitioner the approach of the respondent No. 2 is unfair, unlawful, unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act since the accident in question took place at Tirunelveli, outside the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 is ordinarily residing at Thuraiyur, Tirunelveli. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli alone has the jurisdiction to try the dispute.3. It is contended that the respondent No. 1 had a...

Vijay Packaging, (Dissolved Firm), rep. by Its Former Partner Mr. R. T ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ361

R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The appellant's prayer to set aside the award that had been made against the appellant having been rejected and a decree having been made in terms of the award by the learned single Judge, these appeals have been filed.2. A claim was made against the present appellant by the 1st respondent company, claiming a sum of Rs.6,78,578/-, together with future interest thereon at 15% p.a. from 1.10.1995. It was alleged that that amount was payable to the claimant in view of the default committed by the appellant of its obligation under an agreement dated 1.6.1979, to which the claimant as also the appellant were parties. The claimant had alleged that under that agreement, the unit which was owned by the claimant at Bangalore had been handed over to the appellant and it was the obligation of the appellant inter alia to discharge a loan which was outstanding and due to the Bank. It was alleged that default had been committed by the appellant and, therefore, the agreement ...

K. Mani Vs. Elumalai

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2003)2MLJ190

K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount due on promissory notes dated 3.2.1998 and 15.7.1998.2. The plaintiff's case is that on 3.2.1998, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3500/= promising to repay the same together with 12% interest per annum and executed the first promissory note. The defendant also borrowed another sum of Rs.5000/= on 15.7.1998 and executed the second promissory note, promising to repay the same together with 12% interest per annum. The defendant has not paid any amount towards these promissory notes and to the notice dated 23.7.1999, the defendant sent a reply on 5.8.1999. As the defendant has not paid the amount, the plaintiff laid the suit.3. The defendant in his written statement had stated that he never borrowed any amount on 3.2.1998 or on 15.7.1998. The defendant was conducting a chit and in respect of the same, the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1750/= only, for which, the plaint...

Jayanthi S. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ683Mad

ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ-petitioner aggrieved by what was alleged to be retrenchment, raised an industrial dispute seeking an award for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and all other benefits. The Tribunal rejected that claim and therefore, this writ petition has been filed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the award was to be upheld, it would amount to exploitation of labour and the contract between workman such as the petitioner and the management will necessarily be one sided and therefore, the petitioner had no option, but to sign on the dotted lines of the contract. Therefore, the fact that she had submitted to being engaged as an advance trainee for just a period of one year will not deprive her of her legal rights as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.3. The learned counsel relied on the following decisions:(1)H.B. Vinobha v. Hindustan Photo Films, Ooty, 1998 (1) L.L.N. 744, (2) Surya Prasad Si...

Government of Tamil Nadu and ors. Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2003]129STC30(Mad)

P. Shanmugam, J.1. --Both these writ petitions are preferred against the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal raising a common question.2. M/s. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited, petitioner in T.P. No. 568 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal (hereinafter referred' to as 'the Tribunal'), have commenced their production of sugar on January 27, 1984. M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Limited, petitioner in T.P. No. 517 of 1997 before the Tribunal, started their production of sugar on January 22, 1986.3. Initially, by G.O. Ms. No. 1414/Industries (MID.I) Department dated November 30, 1984, M/s. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., were granted subsidy equivalent to the quantum of purchase tax on sugarcane due from it for a period of two years from the date of their commencing production. Subsequently, on their request, the subsidy was extended for a period of five years in G.O. Ms. No. 1497/ Industries (MID.I) Department dated December 26, 1987.4. By G.O. No. ...

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Tvl. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals

Court: Chennai

1. Both these writ petitions are preferred against the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal raising a common question.2. M/s Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited, petitioner in T.P. No.56 8 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), have commenced their production of sugar on 27.01.1984. M/s Bannari Amman sugars Limited, petitioner in T.P. No.517 of 1997 before the Tribunal, started their production of sugar on 22.01.1986.3. Initially, by G.O. Ms. No.1414 / Industries (MID.I) Department dated 30.11.1984, M/s Ponni sugars and Chemicals Ltd., were granted subsidy equivalent to the quantum of Purchase Tax on sugarcane due from it for a period of two years from the date of their commencing production. Subsequently, on their request, the subsidy was extended for a period of five years in in G.O. Ms. No.1497 / Industries (MID.I) Department dated 26.12.1997.4. By G.O. No. 268 dated 16.4.1987, M/s Bannari Amman Sugar...