Chennai Court August 2003 Judgments
Management of Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, First Additional L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ156Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner is the management of Blue Star Ltd., Chennai. The second respondent was dismissed from service for certain alleged misconducts and at his instance, a dispute was raised which was adjudicated in Industrial Dispute No. 979 of 1991 by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai. By award, dated July 24, 1995, the order of dismissal was set aside with a direction to the writ-petitioner to reinstate the second respondent in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Questioning the said award, the management has filed this writ petition.2. Though the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not constitute itself as appellate authority over the award of the Tribunal to reappreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion, considering the nature of lengthy arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing attention of this Court t...
Tag this Judgment!Mottaiyasamy Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC359
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The appellant herein was charged for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (2 counts) for causing the death of Soorasankaravel (hereinafter referred to as first deceased) and his wife Pachaiammal (hereinafter referred to as second deceased) at about 11.30 a.m. on 14.6.1996 in the village Kattunayakanpatti. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, who tried the accused, found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under each count. The Court also held that the accused should undergo the sentences consecutively. The aggrieved accused has preferred the above appeal.2. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined Pws.1 to 13; marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and produced Mos.1 to 10.3. As could be seen from the oral and documentary evidence, the case of the prosecution can be narrated as under.(a) The deceased, who are husband and wife, belong to Kattunayakanpatti. PW-1 Kakilakshmi is their daugh...
Tag this Judgment!Balasundaram P. and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ910Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Writ Petition No. 8389 of 1995 has been filed by 18 employees of the second respondent-management. While the writ petition was pending, petitioners 15 and 16 expired. Hence, the legal representatives of the petitioners 15 and 16 were impleaded as respondents 19 to 24 in the writ petition.2. Following are the few facts which have led to the filing of the above writ petition. The petitioners and some other workers joined as members in a new trade union by name Tamil Nadu Textile Workers Union affiliated to Bharathiya Mazdoor Sangh during September 1990. The second respondent management could not relish the same, threatened the workers and advised them not to continue as members of the said union. During September 1990, the second respondent management held negotiations with the rival unions without notice to the petitioners' union. Hence, by letter, dated September 13, 1990, the union requested the second respondent management to permit the members of the union al...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nagarathinamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC235
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurer challenging the award and decree dated 30.3.1990 made in M.C.O.P. No. 273 of 1983 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Judge), Chengalpattu.2. With the consent of either side, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. K. Padmanabhan for M/s. Kurian and Associates for the appellant and Mr. A.N. Vishwanatha Rao for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 not appearing.3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein instituted M.C.O.P. No. 273 of 1983 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu against the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claimant No. 1 is the widow of Ravindran. The claimant Nos. 2 and 3 being the mother and father of deceased. On the date of death the deceased was aged 21 years. The claimant No. 1 was aged 19 years, claimant No. 2 was aged 38 years and claimant No. 3 was aged 45 years. De...
Tag this Judgment!Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Trib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC730
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner, Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Limited, Periyamilaguparai, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai rejecting the Approval Petition No. 50 of 1993 in I.D. No. 62 of 1982 dated 20.3.95. After the writ petition was filed, the second respondent expired on 7.5.98 and the respondents 3 to 6 were substituted as the legal representatives of the second respondent by order dated 13.10.99.2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows. While the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') was working as Mazdoor in the Perambalur branch of the Corporation, absented himself from duty from 23.12.92 to 6.1.93 without any intimation or prior permission. A show cause cum charge memo dated 27.1.93 was issued for misconduct enumerated under the Standing Order No. 23(6) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation. The show cause notice...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami Vs. Kasiappa Gounder,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ299
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The plaintiff succeeded before the trial Court in a suit for partition and other related reliefs; but failed to sustain the same, when the same was questioned by the defendants before the first appellate Court and the result is this appeal. 2. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant, by name Kasiappa Gounder, through his second wife, Valliammal. The second defendant/respondent is the wife of Kasiappa Gounder, the first defendant and their daughter is the third defendant. The suit properties belonged to the first defendant as his joint family properties.3. The plaintiff/appellant contending that he is the son of the first defendant, claimed 1/2 share in the suit properties, alleging that the suit properties belonged to the plaintiff and the first defendant as joint family properties and therefore, by virtue of birth, probably as coparcener, he would be entitled to 1/2 share. 4. The defendants opposed the claim, urging that the plaintiff is not the son of t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. K. Adilakshmi and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Collector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ487
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This is a pathetic story where the democratic process of election was not only polluted and contaminated but some serious misconducts have been performed and yet this Court is not in a position to do anything in the matter. Before proceeding further, it must be mentioned that the main subject of this writ petition has become in fructuous. The following facts will help us understand the situation.2. There were going to be elections of Village Panchayat at Ranganathapuram village in Villupuram District. The second respondent herein, viz. the Block Development Officer, Kallakurichi Panchayat Union, was the Returning Officer. The elections were to be held on 16-10-2001 and they were accordingly held. We are concerned with the election process in respect of Ward No. 3, which was a multi-member ward in the sense that from that ward, three members, viz. one lady scheduled caste candidate and two other scheduled caste candidates, were to be elected. Counting for this ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Divisional Engineer and the Assis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ960Mad; (2003)3MLJ271
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen's Compensation, Trichirapalli dated 20.5.1994 made in W.C.No. 43 of 1993 in and by which the Commissioner has passed an award of Rs. 72, 548/- as compensation. 2. In respect of death of one Pitchai on 23.5.1992 in the course of his employment as Road Inspector (rhiy Ma;thsh;), his wife, three minor children and his mother have prayed for a compensation of Rs. 2, 03, 580/-. Before the Deputy Commissioner, the first claimant, wife of the deceased has been examined as PW1 and one Rani as PW2 and the FIR - Ex.P1, Post mortem certificate - Ex.P2 and SSLC Certificate - Ex.P3 have been marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral evidence was let in and no document was marked.3. The Commissioner, on appreciation of the materials placed, after holding that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. N. Ponnaiyan @ Kolappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC171; 2005ACJ1103; (2003)IIILLJ1009Mad; (2003)3MLJ266
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour - I, Chennai dated 16.12.1994 made in W.C. No. 184 of 1992, wherein the Commissioner has directed the appellant - Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 70, 838/- as compensation in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein - applicants before the said authority.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the Deputy Commissioner. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the applicants before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who are the parents of late Pradeep Kumar, who was employed as a worker with first opposite party before the said authority and the third respondent herein. According to the applicants, on 12.07.1991, the first opposite party instructed his employee, namely A. Ponnambalam, Mathivanan, Mohan Kumar and Pradeep Kumar to purchase steel plate and iron pipes from Agro India Limited and transport the same to the factory of the first opposite party at Guindy b...
Tag this Judgment!R. Paulsamy and Gladys Lilly Vs. Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(162)ELT39(Mad)
1. This judgment shall govern both the criminal appeals, and the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per the cause title in C.A.868 of 2000 namely appellants/A-1 and A-2 and respondent.2. The appellants, who were arrayed as A-1 and A-2 respectively and who were charged and tried namely A-1 under Ss 8(c) read with 21 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act and A-2 under Ss 27A, 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act and Sec. 193 of I.P.C., have challenged the judgment of the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for EC Act and NDPS Act cases convicting A-1 under Ss 8(c) read with 21 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act and A-2 under Ss 28 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing A-1 to undergo 15 years R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs each in default to undergo S.I. for 2 years each and A-2 to undergo R.I. for 15 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs each in default to undergo 2 years S.I. each, while the State has challenged the acquittal of A-2 by the same Court in respect of the offences under...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »