Chennai Court August 2008 Judgments

M/S. Indian Airlines Ltd., Baggage Handling Department Airport, Meenam ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The above appeal is filed as against the order dt.21.9.2005 passed by the District Forum, Chennai (South) in OP.No.119/2003. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The Respondent / complainant has not filed written arguments even though that several adjournments were given. Even on earlier occasion viz. on 8.8.2008 an order was passed by this commission, permitting the respondent to file written arguments, subject to the payment of cost. However, written arguments were not filed and there is no representation on several hearings. Hence we propose to deal with the appeal on merits with regard to the available records. 3. The respondent is complainant before the District Forum. He has preferred a complaint on the ground that there was loss of baggage when he has traveled from Chennai to Bangkok and as such he is entitled for the value of the goods lost, apart from compensation for the deficiency in service and mental agony. 4. The ...

B. Sridharnath Vs. the Executive Engineer

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The above appeal is filed as against the order in E.P.No.110/1998 in OP.No.232/96 of the District Forum, by the complainant / Decree Holder, wherein serious objection is raised by him to the effect that before the District Forum an allegation is made as against him to the effect that he is a trouble shooter and claiming ownership over the vacant area and the compensation of Rs.2000/- was paid to him in time. 2. On the basis of the above contentions raised by the appellant/ complainant, we have perused the order passed by the District Forum. The order discloses that the Kurinji Flat Owners Association has made a complaint, wherein an allegation is raised that the complainant is claiming ownership over the vacant area nearer to his flat and he is a trouble shooter. The District Forum has merely extracted the said complaint given by the Association. It is to be seen that the dispute between the Association and the complainant / appellant herein with rega...

G. Nagoor Vs. the Management of Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd., M ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)ILLJ269Mad

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the workman against order dated 30th April, 2008 passed by learned single Judge whereby and whereunder at the instance of the Management of Modern Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Management'), the award passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, which was in favour of the workman, has been set aside.2. The brief facts of the case is that the workman was appointed temporarily as Junior Assistant on 18th Sept., 1995, and placed on probation for a period of six months. While so, his service was terminated on 15th March, 1996, without assigning any reason. A dispute was raised and on failure of conciliation, the workman moved before the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for his reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. Learned Presiding Officer, II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, by impugned award dated 31st July, 2006, in I.D. No.336/96, answered the award in...

Management, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Vs. P. Subra ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)ILLJ267Mad

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard the counsel for the appellant at the stage of admission of this writ appeal arising from a judgment and order dated January 21, 2008 passed by a learned Judge of the writ Court. By the said order, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by a speaking order.2. The facts of the case are that the Labour Judge, Salem, as the presiding officer, passed an award on December 16, 2003 in a dispute between the appellant and its workman which was referred to the Labour Court. While passing the award, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem has recorded that despite repeated summons being issued to the respondent before the Labour Court, the appellant before us, the Management never chose to appear before the Labour Court. Thereupon, paper publication was ordered. Even then, the Management did not appear and as such, the award was passed ex parte. After the award was passed ex parte, a petition was filed before the Labour Court by the Management for setting asid...

Yehuda Silberberg Ltd. Vs. Premier Polyweaves P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]147CompCas360(Mad)

Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This company petition is filed under Sections 433(e) and (f), 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking winding up of the respondent-company on the strength of the decree obtained before the court in Israel.2. The case of the petitioner is that under the agreement dated January 22, 2001, the petitioner herein placed orders on the respondent-company for the supply of certain fabrics of the quality mentioned therein. The contract specified the type of fabric, the weaving method, density of the weave, resistance to tearing and absence of unusual fibres. The letter of credit indicated the minimum standards for reach of the criteria.3. The case of the petitioner was that during the year 2001, the respondent supplied fabrics, which were found to be defective and in spite of repeated requests and reminders, it failed to replace the same with proper fabrics. The defective supply resulted in the cancellation of the contract that the petitioner had wit...

The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Anand ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR577]; (2009)ILLJ275Mad

A. Selvam, J.1. Challenge in these civil miscellaneous appeals is to the common order passed in ESIOP Nos. 12 of 2001 & 20 of 2001 by the Employees State Insurance Court, Tiruchirapalli.2.The respondent herein has filed ESIOP Nos. 12 of 2001 and 20 of 2001 on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court, Tiruchirapalli, wherein the present appellant has been shown as respondent.3. It is stated in the petitions that the petitioner is a partnership firm and the petitioner has been doing cloth business. At any point of time, under the petitioner more than 18 employees have not been served. Therefore, the petitioner has not come within the purview of Employees' State Insurance Act (34 of 1948). The Inspector of the respondent has inspected the petitioner on several occasions and subsequently a notice has been issued, wherein it has been stated that from 01.04.1987 to 30.06.1990 the petitioner has to pay Rs. 7,488.75 paise towards premium and further it has been directed that the petitio...

Rajaram Jora Vs. Registrar, Cegat

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009[14]STR451

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner has stated that he is a native of the State of Rajasthan. On 24-2-92, the officers attached to the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Chennai, had searched the premises under the petitioner's occupation and had seized 22 gold biscuits weighing 2565 gms valued at Rs. 7,35,247,81. The officers had also seized certain records and had recorded statements from various persons from different places. The officers had also recorded certain incriminating statements from the petitioner by detaining him for more than three days and by using force. The petitioner had retracted the statements made by him immediately after his release on bail, on 22-5-92, and by a letter, dated 30-6-92, the petitioner had submitted that the gold was purchased by him under a baggage receipt No. 00840, dated 20-4-92 and it was cleared on arrival at the Bomb...

P. Muthazhegan Vs. B. Krishna Murthy Rao and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009ACJ2716

S. Palanivelu, J.1. The claimant before the. Tribunal is the appellant herein. On 24.10.1997 at about 4.45 hours, while the claimant was riding on his cycle along Choolai High Road, Chennai towards Ambattur, a lorry bearing registration No. AB 02-D 1266 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant causing him grievous injuries. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 20 years and he was working as a Tea Master, earning Rs. 6,000 per month. The alleged vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal praying for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation.2. In the counter filed by the respondent No. 2, insurance company, the averments of the claimant as regards his age, income and avocation are denied. According to them, the claimant rode his bicycle rashly and carelessly and suddenly took a turn and crossed the road, due to which the accident has occurred and the contributory negligence has to be...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Vaikundam Rubber Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)18VST93(Mad)

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner/State and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel leading Mr. M. Azeem for the respondent/assessee and perused the records.2. In all these four writ petitions the petitioner is the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Tirunelveli. The petitioner/State aggrieved by the common order passed by the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dated March 26, 2003, the present writ petitions have been filed.3. By the impugned order, the STAT (Additional Bench), Madurai, in MTSA Nos. 461 of 2002, 462 of 2002, 463 of 2002, 465 of 2002, 467 of 2002 and 478 of 2002 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner/State and confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in all the six appeals. The appeals filed by the petitioner/State before the STAT relates to two assessees. They are M/s. Velimalai Rubber Company Lt...

Y.N. Enterprises Vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)28VST241(Mad)

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.2. It is stated that the petitioner-firm is a dealer in handwoven woollen druggets which are sold to various dealers in other States. The druggets are of inferior quality and they are used in cold regions like Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir as absorbents of moisture on the floors of the building during the winter season. Inferior quality of raw wool fibre is the basic raw material for the manufacture of druggets. The raw material consisting of woollen fibres is first mixed thoroughly and thereafter, carded, which process results in the laying of fibres in a combed condition. The combed fibres are then twisted and threaded into woollen ropes. However, the fibres cannot be regarded as woollen yarn as it has very little tensile strength and they cannot withstand the strain of weaving. Thereafter, the woollen ropes are knotted on the warp cotton thread...