Chennai Court September 2003 Judgments
S. Dasaradhan Vs. E. Chellappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC279; 2004ACJ521
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This petition has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 25.6.2002 made in M.P. No. 32 of 2002 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 473 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Judge-I), Chennai.2. The case of the petitioner is that claiming Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for the grievous injuries caused to the petitioner in the motor accident that took place on 29.7.1998 at 9.15 hours, he filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 473 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai; that while undergoing treatment, he filed the claim petition; that now, the petitioner is totally deformed and crippled and he is on loss of pay, since he is leading a vegetation life; that he sought to claim enhanced compensation under several heads at Rs. 40,00,000 instead of Rs. 10,00,000 claimed originally; that the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that no supporting document had been filed and there was no justifiab...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Vs. M. Usharani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ530
1. CMA. No: 1151 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th December, 2000 made in MCOP. No. 3939 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes) Madras, while the claimant has lodged Cross Objection NO. 8 of 2002 for enhanced of compensation.2. CMA.No:1152 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th December, 2000 made in MCOP. No. 3940 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes) Madras, while the claimant has lodged Cross Objection NO. 9 of 2002 for enhanced of compensation.3. CMA.No:1153 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th December, 2000 made in MCOP. No. 3941 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Court of Small Causes) Madras, while the claimant has lodged Cross Objection NO. 10 of 2002 for enhanced compensation.4. CMA.No:1154 of 2001 has been pr...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Easun Reyrolle Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ932Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 27.8.2001 in I.D.439 of 1998 on the file of Labour Court, Salem.2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of the case are as follows:The second respondent herein was employed as a casual labourer in the petitioner management from 3.2.1994; whenever there was work in the establishment he was entertained. After some time he made an application for apprentice training on 12.6.1995. The petitioner entertained the second respondent as an apprentice for one year as per the contract entered into between the parties. Clause 2 of the said contract stipulates that the contract will automatically come to an end at the end of the period unless it was extended by specific order. Clause 10 provides that it is not obligatory for the company to offer him any appointment after the completion of the apprentice period. As per Clause 2(h) of the Certified Standing Orders the...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Kasturi Mills Ltd. (Represented by Its Factory Manager) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ311Mad
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. We do not think that we can entertain this writ appeal at all. The appeal is against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge whereby the learned Judge has directed the payment of 17-B allowance under the Industrial Disputes Act since the Labour Court award directs the reinstatement of the concerned workman.2. Sri Hariparanthaman learned counsel for the respondent-workman relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in C.M. Saraiah v. Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department and Anr. : (2000)ILLJ23SC says that there would be no question of interfering with the Section 17-B allowance in view of this pronouncement of the Supreme Court. The learned single Judge has passed a well-reasoned order. We would choose to confirm that order. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. Kirtikumar T. Patel : (1999)2SCC106 and has therefore, directed the payment of allowance under Section 17-B. In th...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Sengotavelu Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad233; (2003)3MLJ625
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to hold an enquiry under Rule 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Act with respect to the alleged deficit stamp duty.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner purchased an extent of 1.13 acres of land in Survey No. 82/1B and 318/1 at Rasipuram Village, Namakkal District for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The sale deed was presented before the fourth respondent for registration on 23.11.1998. The document was not released on the ground that there was some deficit in the stamp duty paid. The matter was referred to the first respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. The fifth respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner shall pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,16,790, being 50% reduction under the Samadhan Scheme, which is not valid. The land is nanja land. ...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. I. Elangovan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC10
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner's nomination on the basis that the petitioner is under suspension and so he is not eligible to contest the election in view of the provisions in the proviso in the Statute No. 16 of Chapter XIX of the Statute made under the Chennai University Act, 1923.2. The petitioner was originally suspended from service pending enquiry by the principal-in charge of the college on 17.7.2003 and subsequently the same was revoked by an order dated 18.7.2003. Thereafter, as directed by the 2nd respondent, the Chairman of the Governing Board of the college directed the petitioner not to sign the attendance register and not to engage classes as they cannot reinstate the petitioner. On the basis of the said order of the Chairman of the Governing Body of the college, the impugned order came to be passed rejecting the petitioner's nomination. Challenging the...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Manohar and Prof. I. Elangovan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ596
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order of suspension issued on 28.7.2003, by the 3rd respondent.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 24556/2003 is working as a Selection Grade lecturer in Mathematics and the petitioner in W.P. No. 24559/2003 is working as a Selection Grade lecturer in English at the 3rd respondent college which is an aided institution. The petitioners were suspended from service on 17.7.2003 by the 3rd respondent, as they have not attended duty on 3.7.2003. Subsequently, a perusal of the explanation given by the petitioners and other persons who were suspended along with the petitioners, the order of suspension dated 17.3.2003 was revoked. Thereafter, under the impugned order dated 28.7.2003, referring to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 26.7.2003, it was informed to the petitioners that they could not be reinstated and so they are directed not to sign attendance register and not to engage classes till further orders. Challenging t...
Tag this Judgment!Kovaipudur Consumers' Co-operative Stores (rep. by Its President) Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ1147Mad
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the Labour Court, dated November 13, 2003 (sic), in which the Labour Court has decided the preliminary issue regarding the sustainability of the enquiry held by the management. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in N. Gurumurthy v. Second Additional Labour Court 1995 (1) L.L.N. 1022, has held that the finding recorded by the Labour Court in the preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry has been fair or proper or the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute or whether the person claiming the status as a workman is a workman or not, should not be interfered unless such findings are recorded without notice to any one of the parties or recorded without any reason, as it is open to workman or management to question the same after the final award is passed.2. In view of the above judgment, petitioner cannot sustain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Kavitha Vs. the District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ782
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Act 31 of 1978 was struck down by this Court as unconstitutional on 09.09.1981. That decision was reversed by the Supreme Court on 22.11.1994 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, reported in : AIR1995SC2114 . While upholding the validity of the Act, the Court held that the provisions of Section 2 of the Special Act will have no application in cases where awards have been made under the Land Acquisition Act. That judgment has been understood uniformly as enabling the State to regard the acquisition as having been completed under the Land Acquisition Act only in cases where awards were passed under that Act for acquisition of lands for the purposes covered by the Special Act provided the award had been passed before 22.11.1994. 2. Any proceeding for acquisition for the purpose set out in the special enactment will have to be under that Special enactment only and not under the Land Acquisition Act.3. In the case on hand, the State issued a notificat...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Medical Mission Represented by Its Hon. Secretary K.V. Geor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ683
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The common petitioner in these writ petitions--the Madras Medical Mission (MMM) whose membership is confined to Orthodox Syrian Christians--was registered 12.01.1982 as a Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27/1975). It's President is Bishop of that Church at Chennai. It presently has 135 membeRs. The objects of the Society are primarily to establish hospitals, conduct research studies in medicine and run educational institutions including medical colleges. 2. MMM owns and runs a well known super speciality hospital: Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (ICVD), which was established in the year 1987, as also the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Women's Health (IRM) and a Transplant Center at Chennai. The assets at Chennai are valued at about Rs. 55 Crores. It has recently established at Pondicherry, the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Science (PIMS), which comprises of a 300 bed hospital and a medical colle...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »