Chennai Court March 2004 Judgments
Madurai District Pandiyan Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC47
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, where under, the dismissal of the workman was set aside only on the ground that subsistence allowance was not paid and therefore, the authority found that the enquiry itself was vitiated.2. The question whether the enquiry is vitiated merely on the ground of non-payment of subsistence allowance is moot in this case, since the second respondent, while making a claim for subsistence allowance, had not pleaded the non-payment of subsistence allowance for his non-participation in the enquiry, but marriages in the family, illness in the family etc., as the reason. However, the first respondent/appellant authority had come to the conclusion that the enquiry was vitiated. If so, the appellate authority ought to have permitted the petitioner herein to adduce evidence to support their order of dismissal. I do not intend to go into the merits of the case since it is only on this ground ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Suriyamuthu Vs. Management of T.i. Diamond ChaIn Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1205
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The claimant before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai filed the above appeals being not satisfied with the amount awarded as compensation both by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the learned Judge.2. The appellant met with an accident on 6.12.1989 and sustained injuries in the thumb. Similarly on 18.7.1990 he met with another accident and due to the said accident he sustained injuries as a result of guillotine amputation of tip without loss of bone of middle finger. It is not in dispute that these injuries are scheduled injuries and they have been categorised as partial permanent disability. The claimant claimed compensation on the basis that he was receiving monthly wages of Rs. 2,115 and Rs. 2,158. The claimant calculated a sum of Rs. 38,854.56 and a sum of Rs. 3,018 paid by the insurance company to the management for medical expenses and half pay when the applicant was under treatment. With respect to the latter case, the claimant made a claim of ...
Tag this Judgment!Thiru. R. Gandhi President, Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: [2004]120CompCas510(Mad); (2004)2CompLJ274(Mad); 2004(2)CTC561; [2004]52SCL79(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Apprehensive that the growing Tribunalisation of Justice in the country accompanied as it is, by the executive aggrendisement of the powers, inter alia, relating to composition, tenure of the Tribunals'' members and their selection, the powers of the President, etc., will result in the gradual erosion of judicial independence in the special areas for which the Tribunals are created, and will ultimately lead to Trivialisation of Justice, the Madras Bar Association, which is perhaps, the oldest Bar Association in the country, has, in this petition, questioned the constitutional validity of the amendment effected to the Companies Act by Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 whereby provision is made for setting up of a National Company Law Tribunal (Tribunal) as also a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, and to which Tribunal, the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for nine decades in relation to, inter alia, amalgamation and reconstruction of comp...
Tag this Judgment!Kannu Gounder Vs. Natesa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad31; (2004)3MLJ300
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.2003 made in E.P.186/99 in O.S.696 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Vellore.2. The Revision petitioner is the defendant/ judgment debtor. The respondent / plaintiff obtained a decree in O.S.696/84 and the decree in his favour was confirmed in A.S.81/93 and the same was also confirmed in S.A.No.1187/99. Pursuant to the same, the decree holder filed an execution petition for delivery of the suit property.3. The revision petitioner objected the delivery of possession by filing a counter wherein he has stated that the plaintiff obtained a decree for mandatory injunction and that has got to be executed within a period of three years from the date of decree as per Article 135 to Indian Limitation Act and the decree was passed on 18.12.1991 and the second appeal was dismissed on 29.9.95. But, the Execution Petition was filed on 1.7.99 which is beyond the period of three years. T...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Bellieraj Vs. Vinodhini Krishnakumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad319; 2004(2)CTC510; (2004)4MLJ191
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This appeal was posted today for admission and I heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.2. The first defendant in the suit O.S. No. 31 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif, Kotagiri is the appellant herein. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits and for costs. The trial Court decreed the suit, as against the same, the first defendant has filed an appeal in A.S. No. 43 of 2003 which was also dismissed, hence this present second appeal.3. The facts of the case of the Plaintiffs is that the second defendant in the suit is the father of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have permitted the second defendant to look after the properties belonged to them in the capacity of guardian. Whereas, the second defendant, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs have entered into an agreement with the first defendant. According to the Plaintiffs, the second defendant has no authority to enter into agreement for sale. No...
Tag this Judgment!M. Natarajan and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad433; (2002)2MLJ352
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The Petitioners pray for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent dated 21.1.1997 to quash the same and to direct the respondents to sell the House Nos. 2,3,8,11 and 16 in L.I.G., in Kamarajar Colony at Nagapattinam Municipality to petitioners 1 to 5.2. The following facts are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition:- The Petitioners were allotted the respective houses in Kamarajar Colony, at Nagapattinam Municipality at different points of time, during the period from 1967 to 1970, on rental basis.3. The group of houses constructed under the Lower Income Group Scheme were allotted to the employees of the Nagapattinam Municipality on rental basis. Though the construction was intended to be quarters for the employees of the Municipality, as the colony was established at a remote place, the employees of the Municipality were not interested in occupying the same. Therefore, the vacant hou...
Tag this Judgment!Venus Chit Fund and Finance Corporation, Rep. by Its Managing Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC696; (2004)3MLJ138
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This is the second round of litigation over the very same application moved by the first respondent herein in the pending execution petition. The first respondent filed E.A. No. 313 of 1991 by way of a claim under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) to declare that he is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 67,203.39 with subsequent interest thereon as the first charge-holder over the money lying in E.P. No. 537 of 1989 pursuant to an attachment dated 8.2.1991 in E.A. No. 106 of 1991 in E.P. No. 34 of 1991 at the instance of the petitioner.2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that there was a decree in favour of one Shanthi Finance Corporation, who filed E.P. No. 537/1985 and brought the house and plot, which was under mortgage with the first respondent herein at the instance of the second respondent herein, for Court-auction sale. The sale proceeds were deposited in the Munsif Court at Pondichery and the said Finance...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Vs. Kamalakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad463
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The defendant whose plea was rejected by both the Courts-below in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction is the appellant herein.2. The following short facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties.The immovable property more fully described in the plaint originally belonged to one Nallathambi Nadar, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant. He executed a Will on 5-9-1984 in which the plaintiff was shown as second party and the defendant was shown as first party, B schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff and the A schedule property was allotted to the defendant. The suit property was described as B schedule item No. 1 in the Will. On the death of Nallathambi Nadar, the Will came into force. As per the Will, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of B schedule property, There was a Well in the plot of the plaintiff. The residential house of the plaintiff is also situated in the same plot. During the life time of Nall...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniyan S. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ352Mad
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioner was a watchman in the respondent-Corporation. He was terminated from service on the ground of absence without leave. Therefore he raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court found that the termination was illegal, but came to the conclusion that it is not in the interest of the respondent-Corporation to continue to employ the petitioner and therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 16,000 as compensation and awarded Rs. 20,000 towards gratuity. Against this, the present writ petition has been filed.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Labour Court was not justified in not awarding reinstatement. He would also submit that the conclusion of the Labour Court was coloured by certain misconceptions, which were not justified. The Labour Court appeared to have the impression that the petitioner though residing at Kangeyam had deliberately gone to Coimbatore, to send a telegram indicating his illness, obtaining a medical certificate from...
Tag this Judgment!Ravichandran G. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ447Mad
D. Murugesan, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition. The appellant (hereinafter shortly referred to as the workman) was employed as a salesman in the second respondent- management of Lakshmi Mills Ltd., Coimbatore (hereinafter shortly referred to as the management). The workman was issued with a show-cause notice, dated July 29, 1988 containing three charges, viz. :(1) that he did not work on July 25, 1988 during work hours;(2) that he forcibly took away the attendance register and attempted to sign without submitting leave application; and(3) that he tried to attack the Manager with scissors.The workman denied the charges. He also alleged enmity between him and the Manager and consequently the victimisation. Not satisfied with the explanation, enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer found that all the three charges were proved. The workman was issued with a second show cause notice. Though a reply was submitt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »