Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(1992)ACC456; AIR1992Mad206; (1991)IIMLJ340
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J. 1. These two appeals, respectively arise out of Application No. 1886/90 in C.S. 560/78 and application No. 1885/90 in CS. 559/78, both on the file of this Court. A common order dated 31-10-1990 was passed in those two applications and another application No. 1892/90 in C.S. 557/78 on the file of this court. The above referred three suits have been filed by the respective legal representatives of the three victims in the air accident that occurred on 12-10-76 claiming damages for the loss suffered due to the said air accident. The above said three applications are for amendment of the respective plaints and the learned Trial Judge has allowed the respective amendments and, aggrieved by the said order allowing the amendments, one of the three defendants alone in C.S. 560/78 and C.S. 559/78, namely Air India, has preferred these two appeals. Originally the respective plaintiffs in those two suits based their claims under the Carriage by Air Act 1972. But, subsequently,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995(2)CTC471
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The above miscellaneous petitions arise out of the writ petition No. 5776 of 1994 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a circular dated 24.3.1994 issued by the second respondent restructuring, marketing and distribution group in the first respondent company. A few facts are necessary before dealing with the miscellaneous petitions.2. The first respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with the following share holding pattern :-Government of India - 67.55%The National Iranian Oil Company, Tagran, Iran 32.45%.The company is carrying on business in the manufacture and marketing of phopetic fertiliser and ure. The petitioner was acting as the Deputy General Manager, Market Development Department of the company. On or about 31-12-1992 the second respondent was promoted as General Manager of the marketing and distribution group. According to the petitioner he was better qualified for the said post of General Manager and therefore, he filed W.P.No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC695
ORDERAli Mohamed, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Rc.J2.No. 67077 of 1988 on his file and quash the order dated 9.5.1989 made therein (confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in A2/SRA/4/81, dated 19.9.1988.2. The petitioner herein is S.RM. M.CT.M Thiruppani Trust. In the affidavit filed by one of the trustees of the petitioner trust, it is stated that his grandfather, the late Sir. M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar, executed a deed of declaration of trust on 20th October, 1930 and registered the same in Rangoon. Since the original trust deed was lost during World War II the trust was reiterated by a deed of declaration of trust executed by him and his elder brother Sir. M. CT. Muthiah on 12.2.1969. The main objects of the Trust are renovation of Hindu temples and endowing and maintaining educational institutions in Madras and endowing hospital and gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1970Mad507
ORDERIsmail, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 23 Nungambakkam High Road. Madras 34. The total area of the building with the adjacent vacant site all round is about 34 grounds, out of whichthe building portion alone occupies an area of about ten grounds. The entire main building of the total plinth area of about 16000 sq. ft. excepting a small area of about 1000 sq. ft in the north-east corner of the main building was let out to the Madras Industrial Investment Corporation on a monthly rental of Rs. 1400 from 1-2-1963. The north-east comer of the building has been let out to M/s. Sarathi Films on a rental of Rs. 50 per month. But there is an out-house in the north-eastern extremity of the compound and that out-house is in the occupation of a tenant by name Kohinur Confectionery, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 50. The Madras Industrial Investment Corporation vacated the premises under its occupation on 31-1-1966 and as such the portion in its occupation has remained vacant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1961Mad7; [1961(2)FLR261]; (1960)IILLJ428Mad; (1960)IILLJ428Mad; (1961)1MLJ16
1. The appellants are the petitioners (Messrs, Miya Hajee Isroail Sahib and Co.), and the appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in Case No. 2 of 1956 on his file. The appeal has been argued with regard to the single question, whether the court below was right in holding that the Tannery of the petitioners (appellants) was a factory as defined in Section 2(xii) of the Employees State Insurance Act, daring the period in question.2. Now, in the Employees State Insurance Act, Act XXXIV of 1948, 'factory' is defined in Section 2(xii) as follows :"Factory means any premises including the pre-cincts thereof whereon 20 or more persons are working or were working on any day of the preceding 12 months and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Indian Mines Act, 1923, or a railway running shed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2006(2)CTC1; (2006)IILLJ922Mad; (2006)1MLJ602
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The following is the question posed before this Bench : Does the proviso to Section 77(1A)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Act,1948, providing limitation of five years for claiming contribution, debar the Employees' State Insurance Corporation from recovering the contribution arrears as arrears of land revenue under Section 45B, in pursuance of an order under Section 45A of the Act 2. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, respondents herein, passed orders, claiming the E.S.I.Contribution arrears from the appellants/various companies. Assailing those orders, the appellants filed separate writ petitions before the learned single Judge, on the ground that the orders passed by the Corporation were time barred. However, the learned single Judge, ultimately, dismissed those writ petitions and directed the appellants to invoke the alternative remedy, by approaching the E.S.I.Court and to raise the point. The said orders, passed by the learned single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007(4)CTC529; [2007(115)FLR256]; (2008)ILLJ278Mad; (2007)4MLJ1273; 2008(2)SLJ233(NULL)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The learned single Judge has made this reference to the Larger Bench as he felt that there is an apparent conflict between the two Division Bench Judgments of this Court as regards the issue whether the right of the principal employer to reject or accept work on completion, on scrutinizing compliance with job requirements, as accomplished by a contractor, the immediate employer, through his employees, is in itself an effective and meaningful 'supervision' as envisaged under Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for brevity's sake, hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to this reference may be stated shortly. The Southern Railway placed orders in respect of certain engineering works with the respondent and for execution of the works, the respondent used to assign some job work to outside parties by supply of materials. The outside parties were having their own establishment and employees. According to the respondent, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1961Mad176; [1961(2)FLR391]; (1961)ILLJ593Mad; (1961)1MLJ143
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore in Proceedings No. 1 of 1955 under the Employees' State Insurance Act, XXXIV of 1948.2. The respondents in this appeal, who are employees of the Lotus Mills Ltd., Podanur, made an application under Section 75 and Regulation 40 of the Employees' State Insurance Act for a declaration that the applicants-respondents were not employees liable to pay any contribution under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act. They also prayed for an order directing the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to refund the contributions till now erroneously collected from the applicants till the date of the application. The first of the opposite parties was the Lotus Mills Ltd., and the second was the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The Lotus Mills seem to have remained ex parte, while the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a written statement raising various contentions as to the untenability...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1972Mad439
1. On 7th July 1925, the Government of Madras granted to the Tiruchirapalli-Srirangam Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, a licence under Section 3(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as " the 1910 Act") for supply of electrical energy to the towns of Tiruchirapalli and Srirangam. This licence with its conditions has been marked as Ex. A.94 in these proceedings. The Tiruchirapalli Municipality had its Head Water works and sub-pumping station run on electricity. Under Ex. A.1 dated 31st October 1934, the said Tiruchirapalli-Srirangam Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, entered into an agreement with the Tiruchirapalli Municipality for supply of electricity for the purpose of running the Head Water works sub-water works and other electric power driven installations within the Municipal limits. Clause 10 of this agreement dealt with the charge payable by the Municipality for the electrical energy supplied to it and the said cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)4MLJ639
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgement and decree of the first respondent, the Appellate Authority, passed under Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (Central Act 40 of 1971) in CMA. No. 72 of 2005 dated 25.01.2006, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, South Zone, Chennai dated 10.05.2005, from the premises situate at No. 149, 151, 151-A, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.2. The petitioner, which is a Partnership Firm is carrying on Auctioneer profession. The petitioner has administrative office at No. 340, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001 and its place of auction, show room and godown are situate at No. 149 and 151, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002, in an extent of 5005 sq.ft. and in No. 151-A, Anna Salai in an extent of 583 sq.ft. The property originally belonged to M/s. Kushaldas & Sons, from whom the petitioner obtained lease on 01.03.1930 and put up supe...
Tag this Judgment!