Chennai Court September 2003 Judgments
C. Natarajan and K. Jaganayaki Vs. Sowdambigai Elementary and High Sch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ657
C. Nagappan, J.1. Both the writ appeals arise out of a common order, dated 12.4.1997, passed in W.P. Nos. 2600/1988 and 1147 of 1988 respectively.2. The writ petitioners are the appellants and they are husband and wife and they will be referred to by their names in this judgment.3. Appellant Natarajan originally founded the first respondent school in the year 1963 and the school was upgraded as Middle School and he was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the school. The management of the school framed nine charges against the appellant in the year 1982 and conducted enquiry. Meanwhile, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 302 of 1983 on the ground that he was not given sufficient opportunity and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, enquiry was conducted from 6.4.1983 to 9.4.1983 and the appellant participated. The school committee held the appellant guilty of the charges and that report was accepted and the third respondent gave approval for terminating the appellant from ser...
Tag this Judgment!Bhel Thuppuravu Thozhilalar Sangam, Bhel Ltd. Vs. Management of Bharat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ480Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. When the appellant filed the writ petitions seeking implementation of the notification, dated September 19, 1988, issued by the Tamil Nadu Government under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the petitioner could not have foreseen that very notification would be struck down by the Apex Court some ten years later which in fact has happened. The notification was set aside by the Supreme Court in the case of L&T; Mc. Neil Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu 2001 I LLJ 735.2. That judgment of the Supreme Court was not available when the learned single Judge decided the matter. The learned single Judge held that as the respondent-employer is a public sector undertaking owned by the Government of India, appropriate Government is the Central Government and therefore, the notification issued by the State Government not being binding on the said undertaking, the petitioner was not entitled to any mandamus directing th...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. A. Sreedevi, Represented by Her Power of Attorney Agent Vs. the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ200
1. By consent of all the parties and in view of urgency in deciding the issue one way or other writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. Since all the three writ petitions relate to property bearing Nos. 11 and 12, Bishop Wallers Avenue (South), Mylapore, Chennai-4, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the order No. 1704 dated 30-5-2003 issued by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai under Section 258 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act IV of 1919, calling upon the petitioner to fence off, take down, except stilt plus 4 floors, secure or repair such building so as to prevent any danger therefrom, the owner of the property, namely, A. Sridevi through her Power of Atttorney Dileep Bhandari has filed Writ Petition No. 15952/2003 to quash the same on various grounds.2. The Power of Attorney Dileep Bhandari, aggrieved by the order No. ESI/10791/2002 dated 30-5-2003, passed by the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Developmen...
Tag this Judgment!V. Seetha Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Suplies Corpn. Ltd., Rep. by Its Senior ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ873Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. W.P. No. 14609 of 2000 has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for records relating to the proceedings Rc. No. A9/10244/98-I dt.4.6.98 of the first respondent as confirmed by the proceedings Rc. No. G1/84959/98 dt.6.12.99 of the second respondent and quash the same.2. W.P. No. 13172 of 2002 has been filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to award selection grade to the petitioner from the date she completed ten years of service in the ordinary grade of Deputy Manager (Accounts) in term of the Circular Rc. No. E5/150148/99 dt. 17.12.2000 with immediate effect.3. The petitioner was working as a Deputy Manager (Accounts) in Anna Nagar branch of Civil Supplies Corporation. While she was working, charges were framed and departmental enquiry was conducted. After completion of enquiry, it was found that all the charges were proved. After complying with all the formalities, the punishment of stoppage of increment for a p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Parrys Confectionery Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas900(Mad); [2004]56SCL34(Mad)
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. In this Petition, the Petitioner Company seeks an order of this Court for confirming the reduction of share premium account under Sections 78 and 101(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 46 & 47 of the Companies (Court) Rules.2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has as on 31-3-2002, a sum of Rs. 3319.51 lakhs standing to the credit of its Securities Premium Account. The Petitioner had made large investments in setting up their factory at Manappakkam. However, as the factory operations proved unviable due to several reasons, the Petitioner took a business decision to close the said factory in August, 2002, after following the requisite procedures. The Petitioner has also identified the surplus assets relatable to such Manappakkam Unit and has taken a decision to sell such assets for which purpose they have obtained the valuation of an independent valuer. On this basis, the Petitioner estimates, that as on 31-3-2003, they would suffer a ...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Anbumani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1086
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, has preferred the above appeal being aggrieved by the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 2141 of 1993.2. The respondent No. 1 wife and the respondent No. 5 mother of the deceased Mahalingam filed the M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 2141 of 1993 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- by way of compensation on the basis that while the deceased was walking at the junction of Purasawalkam High Road and Bricklin Road, the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation bearing registration No. TML 3831 came from north to south on Bricklin Road at a very high speed and driven in a negligent manner and took a left turn towards the Purasawalkam High Road and in that process, it hit against the deceased, who died on the way to hospital.3. The Corporation resisted the said claim on the grounds, namely, that there was no neg...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsan Trading Company Limited Rep. by Its Deputy General Manager (P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad124
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(D). No. 487 Housing and Urban Development (Na.Va.5) Department dated 26.07.2000 and to quash the order therein dated 26.07.2000 confirming the rejection of the Planning Permission by the second respondent dated 30.05.1995 in C3/25716/94 and direct the respondents to grant Planning permit to put up additional construction over the existing building in SN.1431/1 as per the Plan submitted by the petitioner.2. The petitioner company acquired 10 grounds and 1560 square feet of land jointly with one K.M. Haridass from Raja of Venkatagiri on 04.06.1965. After partition, three grounds with undivided right over one ground was given to the petitioner by a deed of partition dated 10.11.1965. The petitioner company put up a seven storeyed building after obtaining the sanction plan from the Corporation of Chennai in the year 1965 long p...
Tag this Judgment!Management of India Pistons Repco Ltd., Rep. by Its E.D. (Operations) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ216Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The appellant-employer issued a notice to the respondent-workman, who had been working in the appellant-company from the year 1964, on November 25, 1981 informing him that on a perusal of his attendance records, his attendance was found to be very unsatisfactory. The details of his unauthorised absence from 1977 to 1981 were set out. Thereafter, it was stated that in the view of the appellant-management, no useful purpose would be served in continuing him in employment and that 'the management has, therefore, proposed to discharge you from service in terms of the Standing Order Clause 14 applicable to this company.' The employee was called upon to submit a representation as to why the proposed action should not be given effect to.' The employee submitted an explanation on November 30, 1981, claiming that his unauthorised absence, so called, was during the period which was covered by the medical certificate, which he had furnished. On January 12, 1982, the emplo...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Arumugam an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: 2006ACJ768
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition against the judgment and decree dated 22-8-2002 in I.A. No. 45/2002 in W.C. No. 1/2001, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.2. So far as R.5 is concerned, notice has been sent to the correct address, but it has been returned with an endorsement 'no such addressee' and therefore, it is only desirable to conclude that the notice effected is sufficient, since for the correct address the service has been caused. Since, the Insurance Company is prosecuting the case on behalf of R.4, for the fourth respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, no notice is emphasised, being a formal party. 3. The subject matter has arisen out of a claim application filed by the respondents 1,2 and 3 claiming compensation on the death of one A. Ganesan in the accident and the Insurance Company having become aggrieved of an order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 45 ...
Tag this Judgment!P.G. Gopal Vs. V. Manickavelu (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC257; (2003)3MLJ696
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant in O.S. No: 6586 of 1989 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras challenging the judgement and decree dated 22.1.1991 made in O.S. No. 6586 of 1989 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras as confirmed by the judgement and decree dated 27.11.1991 made in A.S. No. 252 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. Pending the appeal, the sole respondent-plaintiff passed away and respondents 2 to 7 were brought on record as his legal representatives by order dated 19.8.2002 made in CMP. No. 6125 to 6127 of 2001.3. Heard Mr. A. Palaniappan, for Mr. M. Devendran, for the appellant and Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court for convenience.4. The deceased first respondent instituted the suit O.S. No. 6586 of 1989 for declaration of title and perm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »