Chennai Court April 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Management of ComerIn Crepe Mill Vs. G. Ayyappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ312Mad
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. Questioning the correctness of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 14422 of 1994 the present writ appeal has been filed.2. The first respondent joined the appellant-management in December 1978 as a casual worker. According to the appellant-management the first respondent tendered a resignation on June 4, 1986 and the same was accepted on June 5, 1986. However, it is the case of the first respondent that he did not tender any resignation and that when he went for work on June 5, 1986 he was not permitted to work which prompted him to send a letter, dated June 12, 1986, by registered post putting forth his contention that he never submitted a resignation letter, as alleged by the management and for that letter, the appellant-management did not send any reply. Therefore, a dispute was raised before the Labour Court, Kanyakumari in I.D. No. 66 of 1992.3. The Labour Court, after considering the case of the respective parties, accepted the case of the employe...
P. Pathima Mary Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Government of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad456
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Order dated 12.12.1996 issued by the third respondent, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to declare the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Caste.2. The petitioner contends that the Tahsildar of Karaikal had refused to issue a certificate in favour of the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Caste inspite of disclosing the previous certificates to that effect. The petitioner is employed as an Assistant Employment Officer and the certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Kariakal as well as School records show that she belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. Her father's name is Panneerselvam and she was named as Fathiama Mary as her parents wanted to name her after the shrine at Velanganni, which is worshipped by people belonging to all religions. As early as 15.3.1971, she also obtained Secondary School Leaving Certificate which shows that sh...
K.R. Srinath Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Mad)517; [2004]268ITR436(Mad)
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The assessee on 3rd April, 1986 entered into an agreement to purchase an extent of 7394 sq.ft., in S.No.35/3 situate at Geddadahalli village, Bangalore, belonging to one Krishnamurthy, for a total consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid by him and it was further agreed that the balance of Rs.1,60,000/- would be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. Both parties reserved the right to specific performance of the agreement. Nearly four years thereafter, that was on 21.3.1990, again another agreement was entered into in the nature of deed of cancellation, in and by which the assessee agreed for termination of the earlier agreement and allowed the owner of the land to sell the said property to any person and at any price of his choice. As a consideration for this, the assessee was paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, apart from refunding the advance of Rs.40,000/- to the assessee.2. The assessee fi...
The Rajarathna Mills Ltd., A. Kalayamputhur Vs. the Commercial Tax Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ425
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The Textile Commissioner in reference CER/(23) 90-CLB, passed an order dated 29.3.1990, that every mill which produces yarn should produce compulsorily hank yarn to the extent of 50% of the total production for sale in India during each half year. According to the said order, if there is any shortfall, it should be made good before the month succeeding the six months period and that failure to comply with the above order will result in penal action being taken. The said order was in force from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1995. The order further stipulated that out of 50% of the hank yarn not less than 80% of it shall be counts of 40s and below. Subsequently, the Textile Commissioner issued another notification dated 11.5.1990, according to which, the hank yarn production statement should be submitted for every quarter instead of half year period indicated originally. In this notification, in respect of the producer of yarn, who does not have the reeling capaci...
Indian Bank Employees' Association (represented by Its General Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ304Mad
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ-petitioner is a trade union and not a majority union. The Indian Bank whose employees they were minority trade union was the petitioner-union was the first nationalised bank to introduce Automated Teller Machine (ATM). It was first introduced at the Harbour Branch. Then subsequently at Royapettah, Mylapore and Anna Nagar Branches. Settlements were also entered into with respect to individual branches between the respondents-bank and the recognised union whereunder it was agreed to pay special allowance to two clerical staff attending to ATM on permanent basis based on branch seniority. This practice is continuing in the aforesaid branches till date. At that time ATMs were not interlinked to the central computer and were operated by the particular branch where the ATMs were installed. Thereafter the Indian Bank decided to have a network at Anna Nagar branch and to introduce ATM which is said to have been installed another in the Pursawakkam branch and yet ...
The Management of Metkam Silicon Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ314Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner/Management seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the award of the first respondent/Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No.74 of 1993 dated 2.1.1995.2. According to the petitioner/Management, the petitioner factory was involved in the manufacture of Silicon Metal. The factory was set up in the year 1996 having its own Certified Standing Orders. The second respondent, who was employed as a skilled worker, was chargesheeted for his behaviour on 26.6.1992. He and one Venkatesan, a trade apprentice were working in the general shift. The said Venkatesn after finishing his work at about 4.45 p.m. is said to have placed a level transmitter under a work table. He was directed by the Engineering Assistant to clean the diagphram. The second respondent, however, advised Venkatesan that the transmitter should not be placed under the table and asked him to put it in the shelf. As Venkatesan did not immediately respond, the second re...
Arulmigu Adhisakthi, Siva Bala Subramanya Temple, Thirumanikuzhi by He ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad402; (2004)2MLJ660
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 536 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore. The revision is directed against the rejection of the plaint as per order in I.A. No. 356 of 2001 dated 24.6.2002 which was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint.2. The revision petitioner filed the suit as the hereditary trustee of the plaintiff temple for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiff and from conducting auction of the trees in the suit properties. It appears the suit was filed on 21.12.1999. 3. The respondent/defendant filed I.A. No. 356 of 2001 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint, in that the plaintiff has not paid or deposited the cost as ordered in the previous suit O.S. No. 120 of 1998 on the file of the same Court pursuant to the order in I.A. No. ...
J. Vijaya Bhaskar, Vs. J. Jayalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ666
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of the 2nd defendant in the suit, who have filed an application, seeking permission of the court to file an additional written statement and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this civil revision petition.Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners and the respondents.2. Admittedly, the respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of the 2nd defendant, who had already file a written statement and the same is available on record. According to the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners, the respondents filed an additional written statement along with the petition, wherein, they have raised a new plea, which was not set forth by the original 2nd defendant. 3. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners, the respondents, as legal representatives of the deceased, 2nd defendant, are not entitled to put forward a n...
Shanthi Vs. District Magistrate and District Collector and the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3274
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Sundar was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, after branding him as a Goonda by virtue of an order dated 10.12.2003, passed by the District Collector, Cuddalore in order to prevent him from indulging in any activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace.2. Besides three adverse cases respectively under Sections 307, 399 and 302 IPC, a ground case was filed against the detenu for an offence under Section 394 read with 397 IPC and the date of occurrence of the ground case is 15.11.2003.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew our attention to para 5 of the grounds of detention, wherein it is mentioned that, 'there is an imminent possibility of moving a bail and coming out on a bail in future, by filing bail application in the Court ....' The learned counsel contended that imminent possibility of moving a bail application and coming out on bail in future are distinct features, which cannot go together and ther...
Manimalan Vs. K. Subrayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad446; (2004)3MLJ80
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21.10.2003, made in CMP.No.25 of 2003 in C.O.P.No.31 of 2003, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Namakkal.2. The respondent herein preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Namakkal and during the pendency of the complaint, the respondent filed an application to amend the name of the revision petitioner herein and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed.3. Originally, the respondent herein filed the complaint against Manimalan in his individual capacity and thereafter he filed the application to change the petitioner as Managing Partner of the company and the said application was allowed and the same is challenged in this civil revision petition.4. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner and the respondent.5. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioner would contend that the Tri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »