Chennai Court June 2002 Judgments
A. Aruljothi Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ496Mad; (2002)3MLJ154
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggreived by the order of the Depuity Commissioner of Labour, Salem dated 9.6.1995, holding that there is no provision to condone the delay in tiling an appeal in Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and toissue direction to the first respondent to entertain the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner was employed under the second respondent since 17.08.1984. While so, the second respondent placed her under suspension on 21.03.1993, pending enquiry into certain charges levelled against her. Since the amount of subsistence allowance paid to her was not in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules, 1981 (in short 'the Rules'), she filed a petition before the competent authority under the said Act against the second respondent t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Dhanalakshmi Chit Funds Private Ltd., Through Its Managing Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ753
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the decree-holder in E.P.No.5 of 2000 in C.S.No.1 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif, Kovilpatti. The decree holder obtained a decree against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,037/-. The revision petitioner also filed execution petition to arrest the second respondent. The second respondent was owning a house bearing Door No.28 in 5th street, V.O.C. Nagar, Kovilpatti and according to the decree-holder, the judgment debtor is earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month and he had got means to pay the same.2. The second respondent, however, filed a counter and stated that he had no means to pay the decree amount. He had also sold the house property under Ex.B1 and he is earning only Rs.30/- per day and hence he is not able to pay any amount.3. The learned District Munsif on the basis of the evidence as well as the documents, dismissed the execution petition filed by the decree-holder and aggrieved against this, he has come...
Tag this Judgment!Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ276
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Madurai dated 11-2-1993 in I.D.No. 105/91 granting the relief of reinstatement with full service benefits without back wages, Pandian Roadways Corporation has filed W.P.No. 14980/93. The Conductor, not satisfied with the award more particularly, for rejection of his back wages, has preferred W.P.No.21946/93. Since both the writ petitions arise from the same award, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 2. For convenience I shall refer the Pandian Roadways Corporation as petitioner and the Conductor M. Sakthivel as 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was employed as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation. On 17-3-89, while he was on duty in bus No. TMN 5851, at about 11-35 A.M. the checking inspector checked the bus at Anna Nagar bus stand along with 21 passengers. It was found that tickets which had already been issued in the previous trip were again re-issued b...
Tag this Judgment!Padmini Ammal Vs. Indian Bank, Rampakkam Branch Rep. by Its Branch Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ756
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. The Judgment Debtor-1 in O.S.No.121 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram is the revision petitioner. She filed the above revision against the dismissal of her application filed under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure (In short 'C.P.C.'). The petition filed under Order 21 Rule 90, came up for hearing before the Court below on 23.08.2001 and she made an endorsement to the effect that she agrees to deposit the amount due under the auction before 24.09.2001, failing which her application may be dismissed. Since she could not deposit the amount before 24.09.2001, she filed an application on 25.09.2001, for extension of time under Section 148 of C.P.C. and also a petition under Order 34 Rule 5 of C.P.C. for deposit of the amount. The learned Subordinate Judge, after dismissing her application filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of C.P.C. rejected the said application on 28.09.2001, hence, the present revision.2. Heard the learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Kaleeswarar Mills, Coimbatore Vs. the Appellate Auth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ354Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Coimbatore/first respondent herein in A.G.A.Case No. 88/79 dated 31-10-1979 confirming the order of the Controlling Authority in granting gratuity to the workers for the period from December, 1970 to March, 1972, the Management of Kaleeswarar Mills, Coimbatore has preferred the above writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner is a textile Mill under the control of National Textile Corporation (Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry) Limited. The Mills originally belonged to a public limited company by name The Kaleeswarar Mills Limited, Coimbatore. The Mill remained closed on 3 different occasions for the period from 1958 to 1973. Subsequently in terms of the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (taking over of Management) Ordinance, 1972 , the petitioner Mill was taken over by the Central Government. Subseque...
Tag this Judgment!M. Liaquat Ali, Proprietor, M.C. Packaging, Pudukkottai Vs. Sri Brahad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ296
K. Govindarajan, J. 1. The unsuccessful defendants in the suits have filed these Second Appeals having aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the courts below. 2. The respondent/plaintiff-temple filed the suits for declaration to declare that the suit properties belonging to the plaintiff-temple and for recovery of possession from the defendants-appellants. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are 'Maniyam' lands,granted for enjoyment for emolument and remuneration for the services rendered. Referring to the patta given to the service holders, it is stated that the same was given with the condition to render service. Since the service holders were not able to render services, and the services also were no longer necessary, their services were duly terminated. Consequently, resumption and possession of the respective suit properties had been riverted to the plaintiff-temple. Subsequently, the appellants/defendants claimed to have purchased the suit properties f...
Tag this Judgment!Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Having Its Regd. Office at Bombay and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ266
K. Raviraja Pandian,J. 1. The plaintiff who was unsuccessful before the learned trial Judge filed the above appeal by assailing the decree and judgment dated 14.8.1992 made in C.S.No.78 of 1982, which was filed praying for a decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.36,60,316-10ps together with interest at the rate of 20 percent per annum on monthly rests basis on a sum of Rs.31,94,920-70ps from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the said 20 percent per annum with monthly rests as of commercial cause.2. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiff/appellant was the canallising agent for importation of cotton indented on them by the cotton mills. The defendant/respondent mill originally placed orders for importation of 1,000 bales of Brazillion, 340 bales of Mexicon, 500 bales of Central American and 1,500 bales of Central South American cotton, in total 3,340 bales and as such an agreement under Ex.P.5 dated 18.3.1977 has been entered ...
Tag this Judgment!Gimpex Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Madras Vs. State Bank of India, Overseas Br ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: [2004]121CompCas312(Mad); (2002)3MLJ326
K. Raviraja Pandian,J.1. The defendants No.1 and 2, who suffered a decree, at the hands of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a suit filed by the first respondent herein by the decree and judgment dated 9.3.1993 made in C.S.No.43 of 1983, filed two appeals in O.S.A.Nos.107 and 159 of 1994 respectively. 2. By the decree, defendants No.1 and 2 were directed to pay the plaintiff/respondent herein a sum of Rs.46,05,077-65ps with further interest at the rate of 20.5 percent per annum on the sum of Rs.14,70,148-70ps from the date of the decree till the realisation and in view of the indemnity in favour of the first defendant by the second defendant, the learned Judge directed the plaintiff to proceed and exhaust their remedies against the second defendant in the first instance and in the case of non-realisation, to proceed against the first defendant. Aggrieved by the said decree, defendants No.1 and 2 filed the above appeals.3. The learned counsel Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram appearing fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sajathi Bi Vs. Fathima Bi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad484; (2002)2MLJ698
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Sajathi Bi, wife of Anwar Basha, the appellant herein is the 5th defendant in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent A.S. Noordeen.2. The plaintiff/2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.16 of 1986 for declaration that he was entitled to 10/48 shares in the amounts deposited by Khader Mohideen, the brother of the plaintiff, after his death and for other reliefs contending that the Will executed by the deceased Khader Mohideen in favour of Fathima Bi, another sister, was not true and valid.3. Though there are five defendants including the lst respondent Fathima Bi(D4), the propounder of the Will, lst defendant-mother, defendants 2 and 3-brothers and 5th defendant-sister, the appellant herein remained ex parte.4. The suit was contested by Fathima Bi, the 4th defendant alone contending that she had become entitled to the entire amount deposited by the deceased Khader Mohideen in the Bank under the said Will, as the same was true, valid and effective. Ultimately, the...
Tag this Judgment!Meiyammai @ Baby Sevugan Vs. M.Karupanan @ Karuvayan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ130
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree dated 14.6.1999 made in I.A.No.77 of 1998 in F.R.A. No.43 of 1991 by the Revenue Court and the Special Deputy Collector, Madurai.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.3. Even though a vivid order has been passed by the lower court, however not touching the point of review, a direction, especially regarding the powers of review by the Court of Revenue is sought for on merits. So far as the powers of the lower court to review is concerned, it is Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. which makes it clear that it has got all the powers to entertain a review application. Further more, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would also bring to the notice of the Court the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Rules 1956, wherein Rule 4(i) is to the effect that every Rent Court and Rent Tribunal constituted under this Act shall ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »