Chennai Court October 2003 Judgments
The Management of Kattabomman Transport Corporation Vs. the Labour Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ776Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner, the Management of Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited, Vannarpet, Tirunelveli has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the award made in I.D. No. 654 of 1992 dated 9.10.95 passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in directing the second respondent to be reinstated into service with backwages and continuity of service. 2. The second respondent (hereinafter referred to as a 'workman') was appointed as Driver in the petitioner Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). While the workman was not on duty on 11.3.84, he created untoward incident at Tuticorin Depot with broken soda bottles in drunken mood and attempted to beat the general foremen and a driver by name Thangaraj. Though a criminal complaint was lodged, the workman was acquitted giving benefit of doubt. In view of the said incident and according to the Corporation the workman was a casual worker, his name was removed from the list of cas...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Selvaraj, Vs. Sree Komaleeswarar Devasthanam Rep. by Its Executiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ27
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The revision arises against the impugned order dated 13.6.2002 on the file of the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing an application filed by the landlord to condone the delay of 1182 days in preferring the application to set aside the ex parte order passed against them in A.S. No. 251 of 1993 preferred by the revision petitioners. 2. This is a case of total abuse of process of law by the petitioners/tenants in their attempt to grab the valuable properties belonging to Komaleeswarar temple atKomaleeswaranpettai, Chennai-2. The most unfortunate event is that even the Executive Officers, who are both morally and legally bound to safe-guard the interests of the idol, appear to have played havoc in joining hands with the tenants and seem to have colluded themselves to act against the interests of the idol. The slackness whether wanton or otherwise of the Executive Officers of the temple could be easily noted on going through the facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhandapani Cements (P) Ltd. Vs. Binny Engineering Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad241; I(2004)BC429; 2003(4)CTC556; (2003)3MLJ663
ORDERC. Nagappan, J. 1. The applicant has sought for revocation of the leave granted by this Court on 14.3.2001 in Application No. 1194 of 2001 to institute the suit against the applicant.2. The applicant is the defendant in the suit and the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of an amount of Rs. 16,97,166.00, alleged to be due on contract and it obtained leave of this Court to sue the applicant company by filing Application No. 1194 of 2001 and the same was ordered on 14.3.2001, pursuant to which, the suit was taken on file. According to the applicant, the respondent/plaintiff has claimed in the affidavit filed in support of the leave application that the counter offer of the applicant company was accepted by the respondent company at its Head Office at Chennai and thus cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai. It is stated by the applicant that there was no counter offer made by the applicant and the respondent company has misrepresented the whole matter in...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Buvaneswari Graph Paper Rep. by Its Proprietrix Smt. Sharadambal, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ311
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Both the above Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decretal orders both dated 22.11.2000 respectively made in C.M.P. Nos. 448 and 449 of 2000 in A.S.S.R. No. 10966 of 2000 by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 9472 of 1995 before the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and since the said suit got dismissed, on 28.7.1999, they have preferred an appeal before the Court of Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. It further comes to be known that since there was delay in preferring the appeal, the respondent herein has filed two petitions, the first one in C.M.P. No. 448 of 2000 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of three days in preferring the appeal an...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Swaminathan Vs. Srinivasagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC492; (2003)3MLJ566
ORDERR. Banumathi, J. 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order of II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A. No. 98/2001 in O.S. No. 2473/1996 (dated 16.03.2001) dismissing the Application to send the Promissory Note dated 24.11.1983 to Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of the signature thereon with the admitted signatures in the presence of the Officer of the Court.2. This Revision Petition arises out of the following common grounds:-(i) O.S. No. 352/1986 - II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore: The Respondent / Defendant filed this Suit for recovery of Rs. 15,672/= on Promissory Note for Rs. 12,000/= (dated 24.11.1983). Revision Petitioner contested the said suit. In the said suit, the main contention raised by the Revision Petitioner was denial of execution of the said Promissory Note. In the said suit, Revision Petitioner had filed Application in I.A.110/1987 for sending the Suit Promissory Note to obtain the opinion of the Handwriting Exp...
Tag this Judgment!Solaiammal (Died) and anr. Vs. Rajarathinam and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC268; (2003)3MLJ632
ORDER1. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Thuraiyur in I.A.No. 552 of 2000 in O.S.No. 285 of 1997 (dated 10.11.2000) holding that the District Munsif Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit O.S.No. 285 of 1997. 2. This Revision is based on the following-facts: Plaintiff is the wife of deceased Chinnapoovan, Chinnapoovan had his elder brother by name Periyapoovan. D1 to D3 are the sons of Periyapoovan. Suit property is comprised in two schedules-A Schedule refers to three items of landed property and house property. B Schedule refers to Bank Deposits in Nationalised Banks-shown as defendants 4 to 6. Chinnapoovan died on 13.9.1997. Case of Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff is that D1 to D3 have no interest or right in the suit property. On 13.9.1997 under the pretext of taking Chinnapoovan to Hospital, D1 to D3 had taken Chinnapoovan to Thuraiyur and fraudulently included their names as nominees for t...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Madras, Hotel Ashoka (P) Ltd. Vs. V. Subramani and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC367; (2004)ILLJ282Mad; (2004)1MLJ37
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2000, passed in W.P.No. 15917 of 1995, the Management of Madras Ashoka Hotel has filed this Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are as follows: 'The first respondent/petitioner claims that he was working as a room cleaner from 1978 onwards under the appellant/second respondent and that thereafter he was promoted as server and he was paid Rs. 500 per month as salary. On 26.12.1985, the appellant without holding any enquiry or issuing any notice terminated the first respondent from service. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No. 23 of 1992, before the I Additional Labour Court, Madras, in view of the direction given by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.(D) No. 51, dated 8.1.1992, following the direction given by this Court in W.P.No. 4593 of 1989. The Labour Court passed an award dismissin...
Tag this Judgment!indo International Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director and anr. Vs. Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC353; (2004)1MLJ362
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. C.R.P. 1667/2002 : This revision arises out of the order of the Fast Track Court V, Chennai in I.A. 15/2002 in O.S. 4433/1999 allowing the petitioner under Order 16, Rule 6, C.P.C. filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff directing the Income-tax Department to produce the records.2. C.R.P. 1672/2002: This revision is directed against the order of the Fast Track Court V, Chennai in I.A.28/2002 in O.S.4433/1999 allowing the application filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff under Order 8, Rule 9, C.P.C thereby granting leave to file the reply statement in the suit.3. Both the revisions arise from out of the same suit involving connected points for consideration. Hence both the revisions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.4. The revisions arise out of the following facts:The plaintiff, acting as Canters, in the course of their business, accepted Cargo from the defendants from time to time for the purposes of export. In respect of such Cargo handled by the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pancharatnam Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ9
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Challenging the appointment of the second respondent as member of the State Advisory Committee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Regulatory Advising Commission, as notified in the notification dated 16.10.2002, for a period of one year from the date of notification, viz. 16.10.2002, representing the labour sector, the petitioner, who is admittedly one of the National Secretaries of the Electricity Employees Federation of India, seeks a writ of Declaration that the appointment of the second respondent to the State Advisory Committee by the first respondent's notification No. TNERC/SACR/2/2, dated 16th October 2002, published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette without prior consultation with the representative labour groups and without considering the claims of eligible persons like him for appointment as member of the State Advisory Committee is void and of no legal effect. 2.1. According to Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Velu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC321; 2004(93)ECC9
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The question referred before us is as follows: 'Whether the service of a copy of a petition in a proceeding to which the detenu is a party as an accused, service of such copy having become necessary subsequent to the order of detention and the purpose for which the copy is served is self-explanatory by a reading of that document, vitiates the order of detention on the sole ground that it was not accompanied by a covering letter.' 2. The said reference came to be made by Jayasimha Babu and S.R. Singharavelu, JJ., as the learned Judges were not in agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Rahiyathil Pathavia v. State Government of Tamil Nadu 2001 (3) CTC 83 wherein, the Division Bench had quashed the detention of the detenu under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA) on the ground that after the detenu was lodged in detention, some documents came to be served on hi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »