Chennai Court June 2003 Judgments
N. Ramathilagam Vs. Labour Officer (Conciliation),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ480Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take on file the Industrial Dispute instituted by him under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. As against the order of dismissal dated 19.03.2002, the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 2-A of the Act. 3. The petitioner contends that he joined the services of the Company on 2.11.1991 as a daily wage employee but doing the work of permanent nature. He was made permanent on 2.7.1996 after completion of service of more than five years. On 28.6.2001 he was issued a show cause memo stating that he was absented himself for 12 days without prior permission and asking for his explanation. Without any enquiry, the Manager suspended him for 30 days. Thereafter, a memo of show-cause was issued on 9.2.2002 alleging that he was absent during certain days and that in respect of show-cause memo an enquiry was conduc...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore District Real Estate Promoters' Association rep. by Its Pre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ806
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W.P. No. 5978 of 1999, the writ petitioner, Coimbatore District Real Estate Promoters Association has prayed for the issue of writ of Declaration, to declare that the guideline value fixed by the respondents from 01.04.1999 for the purpose of levying stamp duty for registration of deed of conveyance or sale of immovable properties are illegal and unenforceable and consequently forbear the respondents from fixing the guideline value in future for the purpose of levy of stamp duty for registration of documents.2. The above is the substituted prayer as per the order passed by this court on 13.01.2003 in W.P.M.P. No. 1481 of 2003.3. The very same petitioner association filed W.P. No. 13966 of 2002 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 8 from increasing the guideline value arbitrarily and without issuing public notice calling for objections and without framing any guideline as to the basis for such increase of guideline valu...
Tag this Judgment!Tamalarasi Vs. S. Kumarasamy Gounder,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ710
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.11 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Dharapuram is the appellant herein.2. The plaintiff filed the said suit against the defendants praying the Court to pass a decree for division of suit properties into four equal shares with reference to good and bad soil and allot one such share to the plaintiff and to put her in possession of the same contending as follows.One Palanisamy Gounder, who admittedly entitled for 1/4 share in the suit property, sold the same on 8.4.1974 to one Veerammal. After the purchase the said Veerammal and other sharers were enjoying definite portions by way of convenient enjoyment without any partition amongst themselves by metes and bounds. It is the further case of the plaintiff that she purchased 1/4 share of Veerammal under a sale deed dated 29.10.1985 and since then she has been enjoying that portion of land which Veerammal was enjoying. According to the plaintiff, since the defendants refused to heed to the req...
Tag this Judgment!Pooludaiyar Chettiar Vs. Gani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ704
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This revision is preferred by the tenant as against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli, in R.C.A. No. 7 of 1994 reversing that of the learned Rent Controller, Tirunelveli, in R.C.O.P. No. 92 of 1992.2. The respondent/land owner sought for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the petitioner he was doing business at Door No. 69, West Car Street, Tirunelveli Town and he was the owner of the premises in question. As on the date of the petition, the tenant was paying monthly rent of Rs. 625/-. The land owner was doing business in sugarcane and wanted to have his own building for the purpose of his business and he was not having any non-residential building of his own. It is only for that purpose he purchased non-residential building with the sole idea of occupying the same for the purpose of his sugarcane business. Having purchased the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V.S. Mani Vs. Dr. K. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad432; (2003)3MLJ74
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.1991 made in A.S. No. 37 of 1991 by the Court of District Judge, Cuddalore, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1990 made in the final decree petition in I.A. No. 88 of 1983 in O.S. No. 783 of 1980 by the Court of Subordiante Judge, Cuddalore. 2. Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the respondent/defendant in I.A. No. 88 of 1983 in O.S. No. 783 of 1980, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his 13/20 shares in the suit property, for a direction to render accounts for the income in the suit property from the date of plaint, for the appointment of a commission for division of the properties and determination of the income and for costs wherein the suit property is a house and site falling under Door No. 208, situate at Manjakuppam Napier Road, Cuddalore Taluk measuring 3...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan P. Vs. Management, Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ686Mad
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this writ-petition the correctness of the order of the Labour Court passed in I.D. No. 666 of 1993, dated April 17, 1995, wherein the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in the service with back-wages, continuity of service and other benefits have been rejected by the Labour Court.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner was initially working in the factory of the first respondent and was transferred to its corporate office as 'office boy' from April 1989. He was advised by letter, dated December 4, 1990 that he would be bound by the rules and regulations as applicable at corporate office from time to time. The petitioner applied for leave on the ground of sickness from April 22, 1991 to May 23, 1991. On May 27, 1991, he applied for leave for one day on May 28, 1991. His leave letter was submitted in the corporate office and the same was approved by the approving authority at the corporate office. Thereafter, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kuyalal Vs. Dy. Director, Narcotic Control Bureau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(161)ELT62(Mad)
C. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a direction to withdraw the case in C.C. No. 625 of 1995 from the file of Additional Special Judge, NDPS Act, Chennai and transfer the case to any other court having jurisdiction.2. The petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 625 of 1995 on the file of Additional Special Judge, NDPS Act, Chennai and the petitioner has stated that he may get fair justice before the Trial Judge and he has already taken a partisan attitude against the petitioner by making certain observation in open court and he has been asked to pay witness batta of Rs. 2,300/- which is an excess sum and the cross-examination was asked to be limited to chief examination and the petitioner has prayed for transfer of the case.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses may not given by the trial Court. It is needless to say that every opportunity must be given to the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Athayee (Died) and anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ2125; AIR2003Mad382; 2003(3)CTC526; (2003)3MLJ110
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 207 of 1986 on the file of Sub-Court, Namakkal, filed the above appeal. Pending appeal, the first appellant died. Her only daughter, the second appellant, i's already on record as her legal. 2. Appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money under the policy of Insurance and after due trial, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, against which, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 3. The plaintiffs had averred in their plaint as follows:One R. Muthusamy Gounder had taken a life insurance policy dated 7.2.1983 for a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh in Policy No. 45149780 and on 24.1.1983, a sum of Rs. 7,770 was remitted towards premium for one year. He is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff. The policy stood both in the name of said R. Muthusamy Gounder and his wife. He was in sound health all along. He suddenly died at Vadugam village of Rasipuram taluk on 8.12.1983. Since he did n...
Tag this Judgment!Novel Granites Ltd., Rep by Its Managing Director, Mr. Errabbli Vijaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)CTC148; (2003)2MLJ831
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. It is an application to vacate the interim stay granted in application No.2925 of 2002 in O.P. No. 507 of 2002. The O.P. has been filed to declare the appointment of the second respondent as an arbitrator as arbitrary and also to remove the present arbitrator and to appoint a retired judge of the High Court to act as an arbitrator. 2. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that the first petitioner has entered into a lease agreement on 17.3.1994 with the first respondent branch office at Pondicherry for the lease of 1994 Stanford Eder Hydraulic Excavator with Ashok Ley land, ALU 411 engine and all other implements and to purchase a machinery for a sum of Rs. 53,76,000. Thereafter at the instance of the first petitioner, the lease agreement was converted into a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 31.12.1998. There was some default in payment of the amount. Due to the alleged default committed by the first petitioner, the first respondent issued a legal notice on 22....
Tag this Judgment!Arun Balakrishnan Iyer and anr. Vs. Soni Hospital and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad389
A.K. Rajan, J.1. Suit for damages. 2. The plaint averments are as follows : First plaintiff is the husband of the second plaintiff; first defendant is the hospital at Jaipur, second and third defendants are the doctors working in the hospital. The second plaintiff was admitted in the first defendant hospital on 28-9-1989 for removal of overian cyst and was under the care, advice and treatment of the second defendant who performed the operation on 29-9-1989 assisted by the third defendant; during the process of operation, the second defendant came out of the operation theatre and had informed the first plaintiff who was waiting outside the operation theatre that the second plaintiffs uterus also should be removed to avoid chances of future surgery; the first plaintiff shocked to hear this and he was not mentally and psychologically prepared for that; first plaintiff protested saying that the consent of the second plaintiff should be obtained for removal of the uterus; but the second def...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »