Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2007]137CompCas917(Mad); [2007]78SCL442(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the orders of the Company Law Board on the preliminary objection taken by the appellants herein as regards the maintainability of the petition filed by the respondents herein under Section 111A(3) of the Companies Act. Important question of law arises in these appeals as to the availability of the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under the amended Section 111A(3) of the Act with effect from 15.1.1997 on the question of rectification of register of shares transfer on the violation of the provisions of the Companies Act taking place prior to the amendment to Section 111A(3) in 1997.2. The Depositories Act, 1996, brought about comprehensive changes in the matter relating to transfer of securities by introducing amendments to various related statutes like Companies Act, Indian Stamp Act, IT Act, Securities Contract (Regulatory) Act. Prior to the enactment of the Depositories Act, 1996, two remedies were avail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1998]91CompCas757(Mad); 1995(52)ECC18
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 9380 of 1994 is filed by Bhabootimal Jain and his household servant Vagharam Choudhary. The said writ petition was filed on May 16, 1994, on the following allegations. 2. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioners are law abiding citizens, and the first petitioner has retired from active business activities since the past three years. The first petitioner has stated in the affidavit that his three sons are engaged in stainless steel business, dealing only in indigenous goods. It is said that the first petitioner's eldest son, Vijayaraj, is the proprietor of a firm 'Vijaya Steel Center' at No. 11/C-1, Ekambareshwarar Agraharam, Madras-3. According to the first petitioners, after visiting a nearby Jain temple in the morning, he generally used to sit in the shop for some time, for the past more than three years. Petitioner No. 1 states in his affidavit that the petitioners have been constrained to take excep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ21
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is a Matriculation School, represented by its Secretary and the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.A. No. 278 of 2007 in I.D. No. 83 of 2005 is under challenge in this writ petition.2. In the said order dated 15.10.2007, the first respondent Labour Court rejected the plea made by the petitioner School Management and held that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the second respondent under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act [for short, 'I.D. Act'].3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. S. Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the records.4. The writ petition is filed only against the preliminary order passed by the Labour Court and at this stage, it is not necessary to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the self-imposed restric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1995Mad329
ORDERRaju, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the very same petitioner who, during the relevant period of time, was the Editor of 'Ananda Vikadan' a Tamil weekly having its registered Office at No. 758, Anna Salai, Madras-2. W.P. No. 4203 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of declaration, declaring that the Resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly dated 4-4-1987 sentencing the petitioner to three months rigorous imprisonment as unconstitutional, null and void, illegal and unenforceable. W.P. No. 4202 of 1987 has been filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the alleged flagrant violation claimed to have been committed of the petitioner's fundamental rights on account of imposing of a rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The controversy between the parties hereto has its origin centering around a cartoon published on the outer wrapper rather the front cover page of the Tamil weekly 'Ananda Vikadan' bearing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1986(23)ELT363(Mad)
1. All the above appeals are listed before us in pursuance of the reference made by Maheswaran, J., in Criminal Appeal No. 688 to 1976, disagreeing with the view expressed by Suryamurthy, J., inAssistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore Division, Vellore v. R. Padmanabhan (judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 1976 dated 20th December, 1979), on the question whether the officer of the customs department would be an agency empowered to made investigation into an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether an appeal preferred at the instance of such as officer on the ground of the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, is maintainable.2. Before adverting to the important legal question raised before us, the brief facts of these four appeals, in which the same question of law is involved, may be stated.3. Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1976. - This appeal arises out of the judgment made in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas126(Mad); (1984)IILLJ34Mad
Mohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act), is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of India. 2. We would first note the facts leading to Writ Appeals Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of Writ Petitions Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1979 is for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispense of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of the Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manger, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1875, of the file of the Second Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C. V. Raman, under section 41 of the Act. 3. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1964Mad335; (1963)IILLJ304Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner entered service in 1941 as a cashier in the former Imperial Bank of India. The undertaking of the Bank was in 1955 transferred to the State Bank of India, as it was constituted by the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Section 43 of this Act empowers the State Bank to appoint its officers, advisers and employees and determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service. The petitioner was taken over into the service of the State Bank and was in 1958 appointed as head cashier under an agreement for service entered into on 12-8-1958 with it. Clause 1 of the agreement provided that the petitioner'shall be and continue to be the head cashier of Virudhunagar branch of the bank from 27-7-1958 at a monthly salary of Rs. 182 only rising, subject to approved service, by such increments as may be granted by the bank at its absolute discretion, such service being determinable on either side by two calendar months' notice to that eff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC364; (2000)ILLJ340Mad
ORDER1. Since the issues in all these writ petitions are inter-connected, they are disposed of by the following common order.2. In W.P.NO. 1979 of 1988, the petitioner, namely, Somasundaram Corporation (Private Limited), owners of Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills are challenging the constitutional validity of the Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Act (The Tamil Nadu Act 81 of 1986) as invalid and ultra vires of the Constitution of India.3. East Ramnad District National Textile Workers Union (INTUC) have filed Writ Petition No. 13510 of 1994 challenging lay off Notice dated 1.6.1994 and the closure order dated 15.7.1994 parsed by the Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation, Coimbatore-18.4. Ramanathapuram District Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam has filed Writ Petition No. 20925 of 1994 seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in G.O.No. 287 (Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (C2) Department dated 14.10.1993 quash the same and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
W.P.Nos.1912 and 2870 of 2011:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 23.6.2010 made in P.A.O.Nos.4, 3 of 2010 passed by the first respondent confirmed in the order dated 12.11.2010 made in O.C.Nos.56, 57 of 2010 on the file of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to hear the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner in O.C.No.58 of 2010.W.P.No.13421 of 2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the Provisional Attachment Order No.02/2011 dated 28.3.2011 in File No.ECIR/01/CZ/PMLA/2009 (SKD) and quash the same.W.P.No.22062 of 2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that when the jurisdiction with regard to the settlement of dispute is restricted between the parties by an agreement at Chennai, proceedings launched by the third respondent outside the agreed jurisdiction at Mumbai in Case No.23196/SS/2009 before 62nd Metropolitan Magistrate Court is not valid and binding in so far as the petitioner is concerned.O R D E R1. Whether the High Court of Judicature, Madras, can issue a writ in the nature of Declaration and set at naught the proceedings initiated on a private complaint under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the criminal court outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court is the moot question raised in this writ petition. 2. At the foremost, it has to be taken note of that the petitioner has already raised a similar question before the Bombay High Court in Criminal Wr...
Tag this Judgment!