Chennai Court September 2008 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Deputy General Manager, (South West) ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)8MLJ312

P.K. Misra, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the question regarding availability of medical facilities to the retired employees of the Central Government, either under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CS (MA) Rules) or the Central Government Health Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGHS) and issuance of Central Government Health Scheme Card for availing such facilities, is the core issue. The various Original Applications were filed by different retired employees of the Central Government claiming reimbursement of medical expenses / benefit of medical facilities.For convenience, the Central Administrative Tribunal, which decided various applications in favour of the retired employees, is referred to hereinafter as 'the Tribunal' and the retired employees, who were applicants before the Tribunal, are referred to as 'the applicant'.2. The basic facts and the basic questions involved in all these writ petitions are similar. The ...

A. Mohamed Ali Vs. the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Li ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad44

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.One M/s. Sun Electrical Industries, represented by its Proprietor A. Abdul Rahman, running business at the place of the appellant, has availed financial assistance of Rs. 44,000/= on 29.11.1984 for the purpose of purchase and erection of machinery for which the appellant stood as guarantor, offering his house property bearing Plot No. 84-A, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Kattur, Trichy as collateral security. It is seen from the records that the said borrower committed default in payments and therefore, the first respondent had issued a foreclosure notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Thereafter, by letter dated 6.2.2002, the first respondent proposed to hold a tender-cum-public auction regarding the above said property belonging to the appellant and accordingly, after wide publicity, auction was conducted on 25.2.2002, wherein the second respondent became the highest bidder, with an offer of Rs. 1.90 lakhs. Before confirmation of the sale, t...

Narayani Vs. Managing Director, Coastal Packer Private Ltd. and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1059]

R. Sudhakar, J.1. The applicant/workman has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28.4.11999 passed in W.C. No. 56 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai-6 stating mat for the 4% disability assessed by the doctor, the loss of earning capacity taken at 18% by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to determine the compensation is erroneous and it should be enhanced.Even though the respondents have been served, none appear on their behalf.2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The appellant, n lady, was employed as a labourer by the second respondent-contractor in the factory of the first respondent. On 157.1996, the appellant was working in the box cutter machine and while operating the said machine, her right hand palm was pulled into the roller and her palm was crushed. She suffered multiple fractures and was treated at the hospital. She filed a claim in a sum of Rs....

D. Balakrishnan Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, C ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The Appellant is the complainant and Respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The complainant has filed the complaint before District Forum under the following circumstances: The complainant was allotted a flat at Anna Nagar West Extension by order of allotment dated 17.04.1986 under Ex.A1. The cost of the said flat was Rs.71,600/-, which was paid by him by way of cheque to the opposite party on 26.08.1986 under Ex.A4. Though the complainant has paid the amount, immediately after the allotment he had made a request for change of allotment and accordingly his request was conceded and another flat was allotted at Thiruvanmiyur Extension Scheme, Chennai-41 by order dated 16.02.1987 under Ex.A5. The cost of the flat at Thiruvanmiyur Extension is Rs.52,000/- which was fixed as tentative at the time of allotment. According to the complainant, even though he has occupied the new flat as earlier as in the year 1987 and in spite of the fa...

R. Thyagarajan Vs. Mr. R. Nageswaran and Another

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. 1. Appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties before the District Forum. 2. The above appeal is filed under Sec.27 (A) of the CP Act, as against the order dt.12.9.2007 in EP No.82/2006 in OP.No.75/2004. 3. Appellant / party in person contended that in pursuance of the order passed in OP No.75/2004 on 23.3.2006, the opposite parties have directed the complainant to take over the possession of the cottage at Kodaikanal, Dindigul District 02.05.06. But however on the very next day viz. on 3.5.2006, the complainant informed the opposite parties that only after visiting Kodaikanal, he would be in a position to report as to whether there is satisfactory compliance of the direction issued by the District Forum. According to the appellant, on the very next day, when he visited Kodaikanal, he found that several works were not completed and hence he was constrained to file EP.No.82/2006, which was dismissed, against which the present appeal is f...

Bell Products Private Limited Rep. by Its Director, D. Dinesh Vs. M.K. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ1014

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The contempt appeals are filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff manufactures bell pins and bell clips. According to him the bell trademark is well-known and the colour scheme of the label and overall features are familiar to the general public. Sometime before the filing of the suit, the plaintiff came to know the defendant is using similar and identical registered trademarks and copyright. Therefore, the suit was filed for injunction, in respect of trademark, copyright and for accounts and other reliefs. The plaintiff filed applications for interim injunction and also for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, leave to combine cause of action etc. On 06-11-2006, a common order was passed in application Nos. 4394 and 4395 of 2006 and O.A.Nos.849 to 851 of 2006. Interim injunction was granted for a period of four weeks, i.e., till 04-12-2006. It is the case of the appellant that this interim injunction was violated. Therefore, the Contempt petition Nos. 577, 648,649 ...

Soundararajan R. Vs. Management Hi Life Textiles and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ53Mad

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated May 27, 1999 in I.D. No. 133/1996 whereby the claim preferred by the petitioner against the first respondent for reinstatement was rejected.2. Factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under:(a)The petitioner was appointed as Skilled Simplex Machine Tender in the first respondent Company and he was working in the said establishment with effect from 28.2.1990, without any break, for a period of five years and he had also put in 300 days of continuous service every (sic) year for the said period of five years. The petitioner was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,080/-.(b) Since the first respondent Company refused to implement the various labour legislations, the petitioner represented to the management about the need to implement such welfare schemes and further called upon the management to regularize the employment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said a...

Chairman, Chennai Port Trust Vs. Presiding Officer, C.G.i.T. Cum Labou ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)ILLJ712Mad; (2009)2MLJ46

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Chennai Port Trust is the petitioner. The challenge is to the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai dated May 22, 2005 passed in I.D. No. 35/2003. The issue which came up for consideration before the first respondent-Tribunal by way of the order of the Central Government, Ministry of Labour dated February 24, 2003 reads as under:Whether the non-employment of Shri V. Durai, an ex-employee of K.P.V. Shaik Mohammed Rowthar Co. Ltd., Steverdoring Agent by the Chennai Port Trust is justified and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?2. The brief facts which are required to be set out are that originally the operation in the dock of Chennai Port Trust was said to have been handled by the Dock Labour Board. The Dock Labour Board in turn was recognizing such labour through Stevedores and Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The operation and handling of such labour were originally covered by two schemes, known...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Classic Thread Mills (P) Limited

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)24VST149(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The revision is at the instance of the Revenue against order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore dated November 14, 2000 passed in Tribunal Appeal No. 5 of 2000.2. The point involved in this revision is whether cotton yarn and sewing thread are one and the same commodity for the purpose of taxation. The Tribunal has held that they are one and the same following the decision of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. R.V. Krishniah Chetty and Sons [1994] 92 STC 262. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in State of Tamil Nadu v. Popular Thread Factory reported in [2000] 118 STC 59, wherein it was held that sewing thread is not declared goods and does not fall under entry 3 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. On that ground, the present revision is filed to resolve the question of law as aforesaid.3. We heard the Government Pleader appearing for the...

Dr. E. Muralidharan Vs. Venkataraman and Company and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad40; (2009)2MLJ1009

M. Chockalingam, J.1. This appeal has arisen from an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby an application seeking extension of time made by the appellant herein in Application No. 3693 of 2004, was dismissed.2. The said application under Sections 9 and 43(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, came to be filed under the following circumstances:(a) The appellant trading in shares through the first respondent, a share and stock-broking company, found that the first respondent was acting detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the appellant by committing fraudulent acts in refusing to sell the appellant's shares despite the request to do so in view of the highest level of share prices in the market. Consequent upon the same, the appellant made a complaint to the second respondent on 9.4.2001, which brought forth a reply on 30.4.2001 from the first respondent denying the allegations. The same was followed by a rejoinder by the appellant and also a reply ...