Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad64; 1960CriLJ242
(1) These petitions have been filed either to direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate to try the various calendar cases pending before him or to transfer them to the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. In these cases after the issue of summons to the accused a preliminary objection was taken by the accused to the trial of the cases by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the ground that the Chief Presidency Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to try the cases. In the affidavit filed in support of these petitions on behalf of the complainant in paragraph 4 it is stated thus:"An objection was raised by the accused in C.C. No. 3546 of 1958 that the Presidency Magistrate's court has no jurisdiction and the place where the factory is situated is within the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. On verifying the records at the Collector's office I find that this factory in which the offence was committed is also situated within the jurisdiction of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ250Mad; (2003)2MLJ521
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, aggrieved by the order of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court (Employees State Insurance Court), Chennai in ESIOP. No. 2 of 1992 dated 05.10.1999, has preferred the above appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act').2. In respect of death of one K. Sachithanandaham on 28.11.1991 at about 7.00 p.m. while he was discharging his duties and operating the crane in the 8th respondent Company, the respondents 1 to 7 herein filed a petition under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees State Insurance Court (in short 'E.S.I. Court'), seeking to determine their dependents benefit as per Rule 50 the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 (in short 'the Rules'). The said application was resisted by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, by filing a counter statement. Before the E.S.I. Court, the first applicant - S. Savithri was examined as P.W.1 and one Karunakaran as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
W.P.Nos.45539 of 2006 and 24581 of 2007 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.420 of 2004 and quash the order dated 04.01.2006 made therein.W.P.Nos.45540 of 2006 and 24580 of 2007 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.424 of 2004 and quash the order dated 04.01.2006 made therein.COMMON ORDERW.P.Nos.45539 of 2006 and 24581 of 2007 :1. Both writ petitions were directed against an Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short CGIT) in I.D.No.420 of 2004, dated 04.01.2006.2. While W.P.No.45539 of 2006 was filed by the Food Corporation of India (for short FCI) represented by its Executive Director (South Zone), W.P.No.24581 of 2007 was filed by the FCI Departmental Canteen Committee represented by its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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!Court : Chennai
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The first writ petition is filed by the Madras Fertilizers Limited, seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent ESI Corporation, dated 4.8.2000 and the order, dated 24.8.2000 issued by the second respondent Recovery officer.2. By order dated 4.8.2000, the petitioner company was informed that they have not submitted Returns from April, 1992 to July, 1999 and they owe an accumulated dues of Rs. 82,72,656/-. Hence notice was issued, informing the petitioner that if amounts were not paid, then recovery will be made in terms of Section 45-B of the ESI Act. Consequent upon the said order, the Recovery Officer, i.e. second respondent issued notice stating that total amount due from the petitioner company worked out to Rs. 1,21,14,581. Therefore, he was asked to inform the State Bank of India, Manali MFL Branch to withhold any amount due to the company and credited it to the ESI Corporation.3. When the writ petition came up on 29.8.2000, notice was directed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1997]88CompCas68(Mad); [1997(75)FLR404]
Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the two inspections made by the prosecuting officer on April 29, 1986, and May 30, 1986. The appellant and respondents herein are the respective complainant and accused in S.T.C. Nos. 335 and 336 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Madurai. As the respondents have not remitted the employees' contribution within the stipulated time, the above two summary trial cases have been filed against them. S.T.C. No. 335 of 1986 relates to the period from January, 1986, to March, 1986, and the contribution of employees as well as the company being Rs. 65,309.20 and Rs. 1,45,564.10, respectively. S.T.C. No. 336 of 1986 relates to the month of April, 1986, and the contribution of the employees and the company being Rs. 20,708.80 and Rs. 45,977.20, respectively. Both the cases ended in acquittal in respect of the charge under section 85A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, by two different judgments dated De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)IILLJ90Mad
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to an order passed by the first respondent in M.W.I.A. No. 63 of 2004 dated 3.6.2005, whereby the delay occasioned in filing petition by the respondent-union claiming minimum wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is condoned.2. The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and also looked into the materials available on record.3. Concededly, 124 employees filed an application before the first respondent, whereby they sought for fixation of minimum wages by the writ petitioner-Management. The period for which they sought for minimum wages was from January, 1999 to December, 2004. While they filed the application, there was a delay of approximately six years. Hence, while they filed application for payment of minimum wages, an application to condone the delay was also filed. The same was countered by the writ petitioner herein. The first respondent has condoned the delay by allowing the application, which is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)14VST439(Mad)
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) representing the respondents and have perused the records.2. M/s Chitrahar Traders, the petitioners in W.P. No. 15072 of 2007, seek to set aside the order dated 16.4.2007 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes wherein and by which, they were informed that their purchase of Plant and Machineries of Briquetting and Carbonisation [for short, 'B&C;] from M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited [for short, 'NLC'] in an auction sale on 'as-is-where- is basis' and 'no complaint basis' was taxable at 12% under entry 20 of Part - D of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959 [for short, 'TNGST Act'] 1959 together with a Surcharge at 5% on Tax and for a direction to the Commercial Tax Officer to restore the sales tax recovered over and above 4% pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
S. Palanivelu, J.Because of the interconnectivity of the matter, the common judgment is rendered.1. The plaint in O.S. No. 2844 of 2004, filed by the appellant herein, contains the following averments:1. (a) Land measuring 2419 Sq.ft. with superstructure therein in T.S. No. 15(part) Block No. 3, in Sembium Village, Purasavalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai with other properties were purchased by M. Sethumadhavan from one M. Sadullah Bhasha and others by a registered sale deed. Thereafter the said Sethumadhavan sold the suit land with small superstructure, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demolished the superstructure and applied to the Corporation/2nd defendant, for planning permission and building license for construction of house. The 2nd defendant also granted planning permission and building license to build ground floor of the proposed building. The plaintiff obtained house building loan from Life Insurance Corporation of India, constructed the house with the ground floor and residing i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR291]; (2007)IIILLJ85Mad
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 against the order of the learned Principal District Judge (E.S.I. Court), Tirunelveli, dated December 24, 1998 passed in E.S.I.O.P. No. 7 of 1996.The petitioner in the said E.S.I.O.P. is the appellant herein. The appeal has arisen under the following circumstances:(i) M/s. Shanmuga Metals, is a proprietary concern running a Metal Rolling Mill at No. 368, Mangalakudieruppu Street, Thatchanallur, Tirunelveli District. Brass sheets are manufactured in the abovesaid rolling mill. The said rolling mill was originally run by a Private Limited Company called 'Nellai Metal Rolling Mill Private Limited'. Subsequently, the said rolling mill was purchased by three persons, S. Velayutha Nadar, Shanmuga Nadar and Ponniah Nadar in the year 1975. Thereafter, from April 11, 1988 the said rolling mill was run in the name of Murugan Metal Rolling Mills. On October 28, 1989 the said concern was purc...
Tag this Judgment!