Chennai Court September 2004 Judgments
Spic Employees Union (Rep. by Its General Secretary) Vs. State of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ279Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The petitioner has tiled the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order in G.O. (d) No. 729, Labour and Employment Department, dated August 8, 1996, passed by the first respondent as confirmed by order No. 39888/B1/96-6, June 23, 1997, passed by the second respondent, quash the same and to direct the first respondent to refer the matter for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:The petitioner is a registered trade union to protect the interests of the employees of SPIC, the second respondent herein and all the employees of SPIC, other than officers are members of the petitioner-union; that in the present pattern of transfers, there is wide scope for abusing the power of transfer on the part of the management; that the employees are often transferred from fertilizer division to SPIC maintenance organisation at...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Rep. by Speci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ632Mad
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioner is the Co-operative Sugar Mills. The second respondent was first engaged by the petitioner as a Clerical Apprentice and after the end of the one year probationary period, he was not confirmed, but later on, based on the exigencies of the petitioner, he was engaged as Telephone Operator for 183 days in the 1983-84 Season, 189 days in the 1984-85 Season and 247 days in the 1985-86 Season. After 21.7.1986, the services of the second respondent were not continued. Seven years later, the second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute claiming that as a daily wages employee, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and since the provisions of this Section were violated, he was entitled to be reinstated. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with back-wages and so, this writ petition has been filed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been held in various decisions of the Supreme Cou...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pandian Vs. Union of India (Uoi) by Ministry of Railway, Rep. by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad88
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.9.04 in WPMP No.32029/04 in WP No.26337/04 in and by which the learned Judge in effect has vacated the earlier order of stay granted in favour of the petitioner as against the award of the contract dated 24.6.04 in favour of the 5th respondent by the 3rd and 4th respondents. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner, while moving the application for stay was that in the earlier year, (i.e.) 1999, on behalf of the 5th respondent a communication was addressed to the 2nd respondent herein, which is stated to have contained the signature of the 5th respondent and that when the said signature was compared with the present signature of the 5th respondent contained in the counter affidavit filed in this Court, it discloses complete variance in the signature and in the circumstances, the 5th respondent would not have been the real contractor and somebody else was impersonating the 5th respon...
Tag this Judgment!G. Chandrasekaran Vs. C.R. Umapathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)3; II(2005)BC204; 2005CriLJ1820; 2004(5)CTC50
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner in both the revision cases is one and the same person and similarly, the respondent in both the cases is also the same person.2. The petitioner filed two complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent herein and both the complaints were taken on file in STR.Nos.9689/1999 and 9688/1999 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry.3. The respondent/accused filed two petitions in Crl.M.P.No.423/2003 and Crl.M.P.No.422/2003 respectively under Sections 245 and 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for discharge and they were opposed by filing counter. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry, by common order, dated 7.8.2003, allowed the petitions and discharged the respondent herein of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in terms of Section 245 Cr.P.C. Challenging that order, the complainant has preferred these revisions.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.A. Thamotharan Vs. Dalmia Cements (B) Ltd., Rep. by Its Deputy Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC306; 2004(5)CTC84
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. By consent of both sides, the revision itself is taken for hearing. 2. The petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No. 151/2000 before the trial Court for the alleged offence said to have been committed by him Under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, (in short, N.I. Act). It seems the accused/petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 3,95,000. When the cheque was tendered by the respondent for collection through his Bank where he is having account, the cheque bounced on the ground 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, notice has been issued which was acknowledged but not replied. Though time is given, within the time stipulated, amount also has not been paid. In the above said circumstances, the holder of the cheque namely the respondent herein, preferred a complaint before the concerned Magistrate, complaining of the offence Under Section 138, N.I. Act. After appearance of parties the Trial Court also completed the prosecution side examination of witnesses, thereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurangan Vs. Sakkubai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ497
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein.2. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for declaration and injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. However, in the appeal filed by the defendants before the first appellate Court, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The suit property was originally settled in favour of the mother of the plaintiff. After her death, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. When the defendants disturbed the possession, the plaintiff earlier filed the suit in O.S.No1434 of 1974 for declaration and injunction. Ultimately, that suit was dismissed, holding that the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/3 share and the defendants therein would be entitled to 2/3 share. Even after the dismissal of the earlier suit, the plaintiff has been in possession...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan Vs. Marappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad90; II(2005)BC155; 2004(4)CTC729; (2004)4MLJ304
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1.The suit was filed by Marappa Gounder, the respondent herein on two promissory notes for a sum of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, this First Appeal by Natarajan, the defendant. 2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is as follows:The appellant/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff and executed Ex.A-1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 29.1.1979. Again on 1.3.1979, the defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A-2 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Repeated demands were made by the plaintiff for repayment. Since the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under the abovesaid promissory notes, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff claiming the said amounts on the basis of the two promissory notes with interest.3. The suit was contested by the defendant, the appellant herein with the following content...
Tag this Judgment!The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. K. Subbanna Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC595
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 25.6.1986 for the public purpose, namely the acquisition of lands for the erection of 230 k.v. Sub-Station by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the lands at Arasur Village, Coimbatore, acquiring 26.21 acres in S.F.No.57/3.C, etc.2. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated 15.7.1989, awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.11,682/- per acre, even though the claim made by the land owners was at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. On reference, the Sub-Court, by its award dated 28.10.1993 in L.A.O.P.No.61 of 1992, enhanced the compensation at Rs.1,000/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same, the referring officer, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer has filed this appeal.3. Though the appeal has been filed on the ground that the quantum of compensation enhanced is arbitrary and without any basis, learned Additional Government Pleader would ultimately submit that even assuming that the qu...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. India Equipment Leasing Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2004
Reported in: [2007]293ITR350(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These appeals are filed by the revenue against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10-2-2004, and 19-9-2003, made in I. T. A. Nos. 1332/Mds/1997 and 2522/Mds/96, respectively.2. For the purpose of disposing of the case, we refer to the facts relating to the Tax Case (Appeal) No. 744 of 2004 only.3. The assessee doing the business of hire purchase transactions and leasing of plant and machinery filed their return of income on 29-11-1994. After hearing the explanation offered by the assessee pursuant to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the assessing officer found that the income on the non-performing assets had not been brought by the assessee to the profit and loss account for the year 1994-95. It was the case of the assessee before the assessing officer that the assessee has written it off or offered it as income in the accounts of the subsequent years. The income had t...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Administrative Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR509]; (2005)IILLJ283Mad; (2004)4MLJ607
P.K. Misra, J.1. The facts and circumstances leading to the present appeals may be stated in brief.The second respondent in the Writ Appeal No.2094/2004 had joined the appellant bank as Sub-Staff in the year 1973 and in course of time, he was promoted and posted as Accountant at Srirangam Branch. In November, 1996, show cause notice was issued to him and ultimately, domestic enquiry was held by the bank and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 10.1.2000 the second respondent was discharged from service of the appellant bank. The departmental appeal, having been rejected, the second respondent preferred appeal under Sec. 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter called the Act). The appellate authority, the first respondent in Writ Appeal No.2094 of 2004, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of discharge. Such order passed by the appellate authority under the Act has been challenged by the Bank in W.P.No.22557/2003. The second respondent,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »