Chennai Court February 2005 Judgments
The Management of United India Shoe Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Pres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ958Mad
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27.1.2004. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The second respondent was employed in the service of the appellant. He was charge sheeted on charges of theft and pasting of posters in the toilet. After enquiry the enquiry officer found him guilty and he was dismissed from service. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, which found that the charge of theft was not proved.3. After the insertion of section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has a right to sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer which it earlier could not do. Hence the Labour Court can re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence and it has done so in this case. The findings of the Labour Court are findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the findings of fact in writ jurisdiction.4. Learned counsel for the appellant then subm...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanandan Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ111
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of the notice of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A/256/95, dated 7.1.1997 and in furtherance of Government Gazette notification of Ramanathapuram District in Gazette No.8, Page 3, dated 17.7.1996 without issuing proper notice and enquiry as contemplated under the Tamilnadu Act 31 of 1978.3.1. Mr. M. Maharaja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection of the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 4(2) of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (for brevity 'the Tamilnadu Act 31 of 1978') was not properly considered by the respondents.3.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when poromboke lands are available very adjacent to the lands of the petitioner, which are sought to be acquired, the authorities ought to have preferred the said poromboke lands instead of ...
Tag this Judgment!O.N.G.C. Madras Port Contract Employees' Union, rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC1; [2005(107)FLR539]; (2005)IILLJ170Mad; (2005)2MLJ90
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 19.04.2002 passed in W.P. No. 21407 of 2000. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 3. The writ petitioner (1st respondent in this Writ Appeal) had filed the writ petition praying for quashing of the order of the first respondent therein (Union of India) dated 17.11.1999, and the corrigendum dated 13.10.2000. By the order dated 17.11.99 the following reference had been made by the Central Government under Sections 10(1) and 10(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai referring the following matter to the Tribunal.'Whether the demand of ONGC Madras Port Contract Employees Union for regularization of 42 contract labourers listed in Annexure 'A' is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?'4. The subsequent corrigendum dated 13.10.2000 states:- 'In this Ministry's order of even number d...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. S. Jayaraman, Chairman-cum-managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC259
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The respondent association filed a Writ Petition, for issuance of a mandamus, forbearing the appellants herein, namely, the officials of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, from selecting unskilled persons to the technical posts, unless they possess NLC Apprenticeship Certificate of the association. 2. Pending Writ Petition, the association filed a petition for interim injunction, to restrain the appellants herein from filling up of the existing vacancies of technical posts, without having a qualified apprenticeship certificate. Accordingly, the same was granted and subsequently made absolute, by an order dated 12.08.2003. Since the interim injunction relates only to the filling up of technical posts, the Corporation continued the process of regularisation in terms of the settlement, with regard to non-technical posts.3. Aggrieved over the continued process of regularisation by the Corporation, the respondent association filed a Contempt Petition, alleging violation ...
Tag this Judgment!Pentafour Products Limited Rep. by Its Director, V. Ramakrishnan and P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)18; III(2006)BC106; 2005CriLJ2071; (2005)2MLJ117
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the interim order of the learned single Judge dated 1.3.2004. 2. None appears for the appellants although the name of M/s. Kovi Ganesan and T.K.S. Gandhi has been shown in the cause list. We have heard Mr. P.L.Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 Industrial Credit Investment Corporation of India Bank.3. The appellants filed the writ petition with the following prayer:'For the reasons stated in the accompanying writ the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature and declare that entertaining of any complaints and processing the same by the first to sixth respondents and by all persons working under them and their respective departments in relation to the claims in respect of loans, fixed deposits and other dues initiated by various courts and Fora payable by the petitioners companies and its direc...
Tag this Judgment!Registration Department S.C./S.T. and M.B.C. Employees General Welfare ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC36; (2005)2MLJ188
P. Sathasivam, J1. Aggrieved by the common order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 22.10.2002 made in O.A. No. 3551 of 2000 etc., Registration Department SC/ST/MBC Employees General Welfare Sangam and others have filed the above writ petitions.2. Tamil Nadu Backward Class Officials Association - applicant in O.A. No. 9044 of 1997 has prayed for setting aside the letter of the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Hindu Religious Department, Chennai dated 06.10.1997. The other applicants mostly filed for challenging the letter of the Government dated 23.02.1999 issued by the Backward Class and Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. In other applications, the Assistants working in the Registration Department have challenged the panel prepared for appointment to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II and published in Government letters dated 03.12.1997, 03.06.1999 and 24.09.1999. 3. The following facts are culled out from various app...
Tag this Judgment!M. Venkatachalapathy Vs. United India Insurance-company Limited and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC640; 2007ACJ94
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J1. Among the above two writ petitions filed by the one and the same petitioner as against the same respondents viz., The United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by the Regional Office, Divisional Office and the Branch Office as the respondents 1 to 3, and the Tariff Advisory Committee is the 4th respondent. 2. In the first writ petition above filed in W.P. No. 18519 of 1996 the petitioner would pray to issue of a writ of declaration declaring that the condition given in Section-1 relating to depreciation and condition No. 3 in private Car 'B' policy are invalid and unenforceable and strike down the said conditions as ultra vires of the Constitution as one opposed to public policy.3. In the second writ petition filed in W.P. No. 18520 of 1996 the same petitioner would pray in a writ of mandamus to be issued directing the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2,22,000/- together with interest from the date of claim viz., 16.5.1996 to the date of payment a...
Tag this Judgment!Sivamathi Arcades and Estate and ors. Vs. Indian Bank, Chetpet Branch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC68; [2005]126CompCas856(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 15.10.2004.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order and we find no merit in these petitions.3. Admittedly the petitioners had taken a loan from the respondent Indian Bank and now the bank dues are about 26 crores of rupees. One time settlement was offered to the petitioners, but they did not abide by that.4. This Court in T.N. Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Millenium Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has held that in such matters relating to recoveries of bank loans or loans by financial institutions the High Court cannot interfere under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court can only interfere if there is error of law apparent on the face of the record or violation of law. No such error of law or violation of law has...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vasudevan Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Dev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad45
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7.2.2005. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and find no merit in this appeal.2. The petitioner challenged the re-tender notification dated 11.10 .2004 in respect of tender issued by the first respondent relating to the collection of parking fee for Madhavaram bus and truck terminal.3. Earlier, tenders had been called and the third respondent had made the highest bid of Rs. 56.27 lakhs while the petitioner's bid was only Rs. 34 lakhs. Since the third respondent failed to submit eligibility certificate and since the petitioner was not willing to increase his bid, the first respondent decided to issue the re-tender notification.4. Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that no reasons have been given in the order rejecting the petitioner's tender. He relied on section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Te...
Tag this Judgment!Nalkovai Vs. Soundaram and Vijayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ435
AR. Ramalingam, J.1. Aggrieved against the concurrent judgments of both the courts below viz., the Additional District Munsif Salem in O.S.No.1230 of 1986 and the District Judge Salem in A.S.No.85 of 1993, the second defendant viz., one Nalkovai has filed this second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff Soundaram before the Additional District Munsif, Salem can be stated, in short, as follows. The suit property was originally owned by one Chinnusamy son of Rocky Moopan. The first defendant viz., Vijayakumar purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 6.12.1979 as evidenced by Ex.A5. The first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 6.8.1986 for Rs.5800/= and received Rs.2500/= as advance from the plaintiff as evidenced by Ex.A1. The agreement was that the sale deed should be executed within one month. Possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff. Document of title also was handed over alongwith Ex.A1 by the first defendant to the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »