Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Joint Regional Director, Employees' State Insu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ477Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner, the management of Fenner (India) Ltd., has prayed for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from claiming interest of Rs. 1,89,564 on the belated payment of ESI contribution for the period between January, 1997, and October, 1997, as not maintainable in law.2. The writ petition is pending in the stage of notice of motion. Heard Mr. S. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. G. Desappan learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of counsel on either side the petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The writ petitioner a company registered under the Indian Companies Act has its office at Madurai employing about 1000 workmen. The petitioner's establishment is covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act and contributions both employer's as well as employees' used to be remitted regularly in respect of all eligible employees in time. In: respect of employees who were n...
S.S. Sundaram Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by Its Chairman and Managi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ119Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to pay full pension to the petitioner taking into account the increase in qualifying service upto 33 years in terms of Regulation 29(5) of Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 with effect from the date of the petitioner's voluntary retirement on 20.3.1995 together with interest thereon at 24% per annum.2. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of counsel on either side. Heard Mr. C.R. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for M/s. Ayyar and Dolia, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Srinivasamurthy for Mr. N.G.R. Prasad appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner claims that he was appointed in the respondent-bank which is a nationalised bank. Excepting for a short break in service between 23.2.1963 and 1.9.1964, the petitioner continued in service and was promoted to the cadre of Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 1.6.1982. The petiti...
K. Saroja Vs. Sankaraswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ283
S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The appellant filed the suit in O.S. No. 230 of 1998 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,35,000/- together with 12% interest per annum. The said suit was listed on 16.9.2002 for trial. Since the appellant as well as her counsel failed to appear, the suit was dismissed for default. The appellant filed an application in I.A. No. 689 of 2002 for restoration of the suit. The same was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that the reason given by the appellant for the absence of her counsel cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit. The reason for the absence of her counsel being boycott of the Court by the lawyers. 3. Before us, the learned counsel for appellant contended that the counsel for the appellant did not ap...
The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the Executiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR546(Madras); (2003)2MLJ393
S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. These appeals are arising out of Original Petitions No. 212, 213 of 1996, and 483 & 487 of 1997. O.Ps. No. 212 and 213 of 1996 were filed by the arbitrator to pass a decree in terms of the award and O.Ps. 483 and 487 of 1997 were filed by the appellants herein to set aside the award.2. Appellants called for tender for construction of houses under SMT scheme Group-5 at Rajapalayam. The first respondent submitted his tender and he being the successful bidder, the work was entrusted to him and an agreement with regard to the execution of the work was entered into. After the completion of the work as the dispute arose with regard to incorrect information as to the lead, settlement of final bill, escalation of charges as well as refund of EMD and FSD along with other minor claims, the matter was referred to the arbitration with the consent of the parties.3. One Mr. C. Srinivasa Rao., Chief Engineer (Retired), Highways Department, was appointed as the arbitrator. After t...
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Senior Regiona ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ715Mad
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner-corporation has filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order passed on 18.6.1997 in I.A. No. 47/97 in T.S.E Case No. 20/96 by the 2nd respondent.2. The first respondent is an employee of the petitioner-Corporation. A charge memo was issued to him on 13.12.1993 alleging that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,25,545.75. After getting explanation and holding an enquiry, in the memo dated 24.1.1996 the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved. The first respondent submitted his further explanation after receiving the second show cause notice. Order of removal was passed on 20.5.1996. Against the order of removal, the first respondent filed an appeal to the 2nd respondent. Before the 2nd respondent, the petitioner-corporation filed an application in I.A. No. 47/1997 raising preliminary objection that the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947, hereinafter called 'the Act', has no application...
U.K. Rajah Vs. Dr. V. Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3388
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 1257 of 1998 on the file of the Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saiapet, Chennai has filed the above criminal original petition praying to call for the records connected with the above said case and to quash the same.2. Tracing the above criminal original petition, the petitioner has pleaded that he was a Former Director-in-charge of a company viz. The Sovereign Dairy Industries Limited and the respondent had lent some monies to the said company and not for him; that the respondent put pressure and forced him to give a cheque as a precautionary measure for a sum of Rs. 50,000/= which the company had to pay but since the company did not pay the amount borne by the cheque, in spite of the petitioner having ceased to be a Director of the company and without informing him, the respondent had deposited the said cheque contrary to the understanding and getting it dishonoured has filed the case in C.C. No. 1257 of 1...
Miss M.R. Damon, Mission Superintendent and anr. Vs. Rev. M.M. Raja Da ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC161; (2003)IILLJ730Mad
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the impugned award of the 2nd respondent-Labour Court, dated 16.10.1996 passed in I.D.No.342 of 1988.2. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent was appointed on 1.1.1983 as a Pastor in the Kodaikanal Mission Church, which was one of the churches established by American Advent Mission, the 2nd petitioner. The 1st respondent was also looking after the hostel of the School of Evangelism consisting of about six students. The 1st respondent was terminated on 28.7.1987. So the 1st respondent raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter called 'the Act', before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation failed, the matter was referred for adjudication before the 2nd respondent. The reference was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.13970/1988. While dismissing the said writ petition, this Court found that the issue whether the 1st respondent is a workman o...
S. Moorthy Vs. L. Alphones and A.L.R. Peter
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ733
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The above civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in E.P. No. 37 of 1996 in O.P. No. 73 of 1993 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchi, in and by which the petitioner was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:Till the petitioner was arrested on 02.08.1999 and produced before the District Forum, the petitioner was not aware of any of the proceedings. Only after applying copies of the complaint in O.P. No. 73 of 1993 filed by the respondents, order passed by the District Forum on the said complaint on 15.10.1993 along with the order passed in E.P. No. 37 of 1996 dated 29.01.1997, he came to know that an ex parte order was passed in the complaint of the respondents dated 15.10.1993. It is further stated that the respondents had entrusted the petitioner with the task of providing labour con...
R. Jayapaul Vs. Pappayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad6; (2003)2MLJ47
A.K. Rajan, J.1. Suit has been filed for declaration, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits.2. The suit property was Government property; it was originally allotted long back in the name of one Chinnamuthiammal. She was the first wife of one Ramar. Chinnamuthiammal had no issues; hence she was divorced according to their custom by Ramar. Subsequently, Ramar married one Chitra as his second wife. Through Chitra, Ramar had a son, who is the defendant. Chinnamuthiammal during her life-time executed a gift deed in favour of Pappayee Ammal, the plaintiff, who is the sister's daughter of Chinnamuthiammal. While so, Chinnamuthiammal died and the last rites were performed by the sons of the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant occupied the property. Therefore, the present suit has been filed, as stated above. 3. The case of the defendant is that the property though allotted in the name of Chinnamuthiammal, it is really the property of Ramar, that is, the husband of Chinnamuthiammal ...
Madras Steel Re-rollers Association, Rep. by Its President Sri Umesh M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(88)ECC563; 2003(159)ELT75(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In the above batch of writ petitions, W.P.No:14672 of 1997 has been filed by Madras Steel Re-rollers Association, while the remaining writ petitions have been filed by various individual steel re-rolling industries. But the relief sought or are identical.2. The petitioner in each of the writ petition has prayed for the issue of a writ of Declaration declaring that Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997 inserted by Notification NO. 45/97-Central Excise (NT) dated 30.8.197 as ultra vires and contrary to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Sub Rule 3 of the Said Rules in so far as the petitioner is concerned or in so far as the petitioners Association is concerned. 3. As the facts leading to the writ petitions and contentions are identical, the above writ petitions were consolidated and taken up for final disposal with the consent of either side. 4. The writ petitioners are rerollers and they manu...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »