Chennai Court January 2003 Judgments
The Commissioner, Thirukkazhukundram Panchayat Union Vs. Authority App ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR715]; (2003)IILLJ352Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner, the Commissioner of Thirukkazhukundram Panchayat Union, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the proceedings of the first respondent dated 5.1.96 made in M.W. Case NO. 14/95 and quash the same.2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Ms. D. Malarvizhi, learned government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for some of the proposed respondents in WMP No. 22139 of 1997.3. Respondents 2 to 45 moved the first respondent for a direction to pay the minimum wages in terms of Section 20(2) of The Minimum Wages Act, 1989. The 44 part-time overhead tank operators of various Panchayats moved the petition for direction to pay minimum wages, while complaining that they are being paid far less than the minimum wages notified by the State Government. The first respondent, overruling the objections raised by the writ petitioner, directed payment of min...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkataraman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Chief of the Air Staf ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC594
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus calling for the records pursuant to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in RO/2504/2/PW (Dis) dated 12.4.2001 and quash the same insofar as the petitioner (S. No. 8 is concerned) and direct the respondents to grant extension of service for a further period of three years.2. The petitioner joined Indian Air Force on 12.5.1973. While in service he met with an accident during 1975 resulting in amputation of his right leg. The Court of enquiry convened in this respect recorded a finding that the injury was attributable to service. The petitioner was thereafter retained in service in lower medical category as a Clerk (General Duties) with 90% disability. The petitioner completed 15 years of initial engagement. The service of the petitioner was extended for six years at the first instance and, thereafter, for five and three years respectively for the second and third time. The petitioner has so far comp...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramakrishnan and V.K. Mohandas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ463Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. Two petitioners have joined together and have prayed this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners with all consequential and attendant benefits.2. The petitioners are working as bakermen in the MRC canteen under the control of the 2nd respondent. The first petitioner was recruited during 1983 as a casual labour with the 2nd respondent during 1979 and since their initial recruitment they have been continuously working with sincerity and diligence. Despite large number of years of service, they have not been given the benefit of regularisation till date. The petitioners are being paid only consolidated salary. The petitioners approached the respondents periodically and they were being assured of regularisation from time to time in due course. The petitioners state that despite such assurances, no positive action has been taken. The petitioners made a representation on 15.7.97 to the 2nd res...
Tag this Judgment!Keystone India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ657Mad
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for and quash the proceedings, dated January 24, 2000, under which the petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 19,83,176 payable to the defaulter, Sivananda Steels Ltd., Chennai, the fourth respondent herein.2. It is not in dispute, that the fourth respondent is a defaulter by non-payment of the amount to the first respondent as demanded under the Act. But on the basis that the petitioner was having money payable to the defaulter, to the tune of Rs. 19.16 lakhs, the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the said sum was passed.3. According to the petitioner, the said amount though is payable by the petitioner to the fourth respondent, has to be adjusted against the amount payable by the respondent, towards the interest and the said Sivananda Steels Ltd., is liable to pay Rs. 2.19 lakhs more and above the said amount.4. The learned counsel appea...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. R. Bhaskar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ376Mad
K. Govindarajan, J. 1. The petitioner-company filed the above writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories passed under Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Rules, 1981, dated May 17, 2001, under which the Deputy Chief Inspector directed the petitioner to confer permanent status on the petitioners as per the annexure therein. This order was passed at the instance of the first respondent in each case.2. According to them, they were appointed as trainees in the production department for a period of two years in the petitioner industrial establishments. The services as trainees would stand terminated at the end of two years. But, they were allowed to continue to work even after completion of two years' training without break in service, resulting that they are in continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months, entitling them to be conferred with permanent status by...
Tag this Judgment!K. Palanisamy, Vs. Kaliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad346
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. At this admission stage, heard the learned Counsel for both sides. 2. No case is made out by the appellants for making admission of this second appeal, since the Court is unable to notice any question of law or substantial question of law to be formulated for consideration. 3. It was a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for a declaration of her title in respect of the suit property along with consequential permanent injunction. The suit was resisted by the appellants/defendants stating interalia that the plaintiff had no semblance of right even in the suit property, and hence, her claim has got to be rejected. Both the Courts below agreeing with the case of the plaintiff, have recorded a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property, and hence, the declaration along with the consequential injunction were to be granted. Aggrieved defendants have brought forth this second appeal. 4. The judgments of the Courts below have been ca...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1827
S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The appeal is against the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore dated 14.9.2001 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.575 of 1996. The respondents 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of one Jalal who lost his life in a road accident on 19.11.1995. They filed the said claim petition, claiming a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-. Under the impugned Award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- which is now being challenged in this appeal.2. The claimants' case is that on 19.1.1995 at about 11.00 a.m when the deceased was travelling in a motor cycle as one of the pillion riders, the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-37-N-0616 came in the opposite direction, driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, the deceased was thrown away and died on the spot.3. The claim petition was filed on the basis that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m and now the legal r...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakumar and Sampoornam Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Varapa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3690
N. Dhinakar, J. 1. The appellants, two in number, who were arrayed as 'A.1 and A.2' before the learned Principal Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 206 of 1998, challenge their conviction and sentence and in the judgment, they will be referred to in the order as 'A.1 and A.2'. They were tried before the learned Sessions Judge on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 1.00 a.m. on 29.4.1997 they caused the death of the deceased, Muthu, by beating him on various parts of his body with aruval and sticks. The learned Sessions Judge, accepting the prosecution version as brought out through both oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. 2. The facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows:- P.W.2 is a relative of the deceased and P.W.8 is the younger brother of the deceased. A.1 is the son of A.2. A.2 and the deceased were in illicit relationship with each other. A.2, after quarrelling with her husband, was living at Thirumurug...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Christian Medical College and Hospital Vs. Presiding Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ651Mad
Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ-petitioner, management of Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the award, dated March 31, 1999, passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 844 of 1993.2. Heard Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-management and Sri V. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. With the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The first respondent-Labour Court by the impugned award directed reinstatement of the second respondent workman with full back- wages and all other attendant benefits by award dated March 31, 1999, besides awarded cost of Rs. 500. Challenging the said award the writ-petitioner-management has filed the present writ petition. Without prejudice, pending the writ petition, the second respondent was reinstated and he continued to work even as of today und...
Tag this Judgment!A. Thangamani, Vs. Panchayat Union, Through Its Commissioner,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ619
M. Chockalingam, J.1. A judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the licensee of the coconut trees in the suit property and consequential permanent injunction that his possession should not be interfered with is under challenge.2. The short facts which led to the filing of the suit can be stated as follows:Originally, the plaintiff Arujunan Servai whose legal representatives are the present appellants, obtained a licence dated 21.11.1957 from the Tahsildar, Nilakottai for raising coconut trees in the Government poramboke land in R.S. No. 111/13 in Natham Oorani Bund, Mannadimangalam Village, Nilakottai Taluk. The said licence was issued under the Board Standing Order S.19-B (para 3). After the licence was granted, the plaintiff raised 150 coconut trees in the Oorani Bund in Survey No. 111/13. He was enjoying the same. The second defendant attempted to interfere ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »