Chennai Court November 2004 Judgments
The Management of Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-op. Bank Vs. the Workmen Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC628; [2005(104)FLR425]; (2005)ILLJ905Mad
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner which is the Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank is aggrieved against the award of the second respondent/ Industrial Tribunal dated 26.02.1999 made in I.D. No. 65 of 1990. In the said dispute, the issue which was referred for adjudication was to prescribe the manner of creation of reserve fund under Clause-(v) of Item No.2 of iii-schedule appended to Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 in respect of Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank Limited and accordingly to determine the allocable surplus for the accounting years 1984-85 to 1987-88 and to fix the quantum of bonus payable to the employees of the above said bank for the above said years.2. The brief facts which lead to the culmination of the above said dispute can be stated as under:The petitioner Bank is admittedly a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner Bank is governed by the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniyandi S/O Kaliannan Rep. by His Wife Palaniammal, Power Agent Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC610
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. These two C.R.Ps. have been filed against the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the orders passed by the Rent Controller.2. The revision petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. is the tenant under the respondent/landlord. Admittedly, there are proceedings pending against the revision petitioner for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. From the orders of Rent Controller, it is clear that there are 9 portions in the house and 8 tenants have vacated, but the petitioner alone did not vacate the house and the construction activities are also going on after demolition of this portion. The petitioner also has filed a petition to restore the water connection. That application has been rejected on the ground that the revision petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 349/97 and obtained a stay. Even prior to that the water supply was disconnected. In spite of that the tenant did ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Soundarajan and ors. Vs. the Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC654
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in circular No. PER/RR/531/2000/3007 DATED 28.08.2000 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to pay the arrears as well as the other retirement benefits as per the VRS Scheme applicable to the petitioners.2. There was V.R.S. Scheme framed by the company on various dates, the last of which on 18.11.1993 and thereafter on 28.8.2000. The petitioners No. 14 to 16 have filed their application for V.R.S. prior to 28.8.2000. All other petitioners have filed their application only after 28.8.2000. As per the V.R.S Scheme dated 18.11.1993, persons opting for V.R.S. were given number of benefits as specified in the Scheme. Some of the benefits were taken away by circular dated 28.8.2000. The question here is as to whether the persons who opted to go on V.R.S. after 28.8.2000 are also entitled to get the sam...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ameetha Begam Vs. the Commissioner, Marungapuri Panchayat Union and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC284; [2005(105)FLR869]
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 21.7.2004 of the first respondent, by which the appellant, who was working as a Cook in the Girls Higher Secondary School, Thuvarankurichi was transferred to the Panchayat Union Elementary School at Nattarpatti, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 745 of 2004.2. The learned Single Judge, by and ors. dated 12.10.2004, which is impugned in this writ appeal, finding that the and ors. of transfer dated 21.7.2004 was passed on administrative grounds dismissed the writ petition (W. P. No. 745 of 2004). Hence, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal to set aside the and ors. of the learned Single Judge dated 12.10,2004 made in W. P. No. 745 of 2004.3. It is trite law that unless there is a term to the contrary in the contract of service, a transfer Order is a normal incidence of service. In the absence of any term prohibiting transfer of the employee, prima facie, the transfer and ors. cannot ...
Tag this Judgment!Auro Food Ltd., Rep. by Its Director B.M. Patel Vs. the Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Mad)585; [2005]276ITR658(Mad); (2005)1MLJ79
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 09.09.1997 made in W.P.No.15177 of 1988, in and by which the learned Judge confirmed the order dated 07.11.1988 of the Commissioner of Income-tax - first respondent herein.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.3. The petitioner - M/s. Auro Food Limited, Pondicherry filed a petition under Section 220(2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 03.09.1988 for waiver of interest before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. It is the case of the petitioner that it had a claim for deduction under Section 80-J of the Act for a larger quantum than that was finally decided. Till the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in its decision in Lohia Machine Tools Limited : [1985]152ITR308(SC) , the petitioner pointed out that it had in its favour the decision of the Madras High Court. In the waiver petition, it is also stated that the demand...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Eid Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ138Mad
A.K. Rajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.A. No. 243 of 2001 in I.D. No. 263 of 2000 and quash its order, dated February 6, 2002.2. A reference was made to the Labour Court as to whether the persons named in the reference working in the canteen of E.I.D. Parry were employees of the factory. It was pending in I.D. No. 263 of 2001. While so, a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been arrived between the parties concerned on January 10, 1986 and it was modified by another settlement, dated July 26, 1990. According to Clause 2 of the settlement, the workmen who are listed in the Annexure-A and parties to the settlement shall be taken into canteen roll of the management effective from April 1, 2001 and their respective date of entry into the management service shall be deemed to be from April 1, 2001 and it also contains the particulars relating to pay-structu...
Tag this Judgment!Jayakumari Babu Vs. B. Amilnathan-now-b. Amalanathan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ708
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Second appeals filed against the judgments and decrees dated 15.4.2004 in A.S. Nos. 392 and 393 of 2003 respectively on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1648 of 1997 are as follows:- The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1648 of 1997 is the appellant in both the appeals on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The issue related to the relief of specific performance, this court deals with that suit whose adjudication will answer the relief sought for by the second defendant, the purchaser in his suit. The plaintiff in the above suit sought two reliefs namely;(1) Based on the strength of execution of Ex. A1 that was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 4.3.1974 wherein the plaintiff sought for the relief of specific performance.(2) Since the plaintiff claims that she is in possession by virtue of the said agreement dated 4.3.1974, she also prayed for p...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Presidin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR935]; (2005)ILLJ1159Mad
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The employer has filed this writ petition against the award of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement with continuity of service, backwages and other benefits.2. The second respondent joined the petitioner as a security guard in 1979. He had put in about 22 years of service when he was issued with the charge sheet for theft of the respondents' property of three blades of 48' ceiling fan, 2 blades of pedestal fan and one exhaust fan. The domestic enquiry was conducted and simultaneously criminal proceedings were also initiated at the instance of the petitioner against the second respondent. The criminal proceedings ended in acquittal. The domestic enquiry ended in termination. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court found that the charges have not been proved and therefore, allowed the claim of the second respondent.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/management would submit that the award is vitiated. The petitioner sought ...
Tag this Judgment!Member, Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department and Vs. M. Ravind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ157
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 292 of 1993, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.08.1997, setting aside the order of the Appropriate Authority (Income-tax Department) dated 21.12.1992, have preferred the above writ appeal.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.3. Initially, Vatsala Ramachandran entered into an agreement with D. John Alfred - third respondent on 30.09.1992, wherein she agreeing to sell the property comprising land and buildings measuring about 4 grounds and 1,555 sq.ft., bearing Corporation Door No. 22, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Madras for a total consideration of Rs. 67,50,000/-. The agreement provided that the same was to be filed with the Appropriate Authority under the Income-tax Act and in the event of the said Authority issuing a No Objection Certificate, the sale has to be completed within 45 days from the date of issuance of such certificate. Subsequent to entering ...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Insecticides and Fertilizers, Rep. by Its Partner Pappu Vs. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ162
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.03.1989 made in O.S. No. 328 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Erode, granting a decree for a sum of Rs. 25,946.70 along with 12% interest on the principal sum of Rs. 25,946.70 from the date of plaint till the date of decree and cthereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till realisation. Having been aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the Defendant has preferred this appeal.2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,37,344.90 on the ground that the Plaintiff has supplied Pesticides to the Defendant, on credit, at Erode and the Plaintiff was sending the goods through bank on the basis of Hundies. Out of the said business, as per the accounts maintained by the Plaintiff, there is a balance of Rs. 1,17,730.60. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant has not paid the amount. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of principal sum of Rs. 1,17,730.60 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »