Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)IILLJ273Mad
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This batch of writ petitions and appeals has been posted for hearing before a Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench owing to doubts raised at the Bar about the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Ismail and Palaniswami JJ. in Coimbatore Municipality v. Thiruvenkatasami. I.L.R. 1973 Mad. 405 : 87 L.W. 462 in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain : (1978)IILLJ399SC Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay : (1961)IILLJ77SC , Nagpur Corporation v. Its employees : (1960)ILLJ523SC Dr. Devendra M. Surti v. State of Gujarat : 1969CriLJ285 etc. The three common questions which arise for consideration in these may be set out as follows :- 1. Whether the Electrical undertaking of a Municipality will be an industrial establishment within the meaning of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the standing Orders Act) and if so, whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ754Mad
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated July 19, 1993, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 12976 of 1993. At the stase of admission of the writ appeal, the respondent is notified. Accordingly, he is represented through a counsel. Hence, the writ appeal is heard for final disposal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner - appellant sought for quashing the order dated June 28, 1993 passed by the respondent in his proceedings bearing No. 51-8718/11 1NETV, directing the petitioner - appellant to pay the contribution in respect of certain employees, as stated in the impugned order. The respondent, in all, demanded a sum of Rs. 21,803.79. The learned single Judge has rejected, the writ petition on the ground that it is open to the petitioner - appellant to approach the Court under Section 75 of the Employees* State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Therefore, the learned single Judge has held that no interference is called fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1998(80)FLR991]; (1999)IILLJ1342Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent dated March 1982 and their subsequent letter dated January 11, 1989, the petitioner-Management has filed the above writ petition for quashing the same on various grounds. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner company is covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act. According to them, there was some delay in the submission ofcontribution cards in respect of the periodsfrom September 1975 to September 1976,January 1977, September 1977, March 1978,September 1978, July 1979, September 1979and November 1979. The respondent issued ashow cause notice,No. T.N.INS.III.51-3142-74 dated August 18,1981 stating that they proposed to recover asum of Rs. 5,710.35 as the interest underRegulation 31(A) of the E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950 read with Section 97(2)(iii) of the Act. In addition to the above mentioned show cause notice, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad484
Ramaswami, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision of our learned brother Basheer Ahmad Sayeed, J. in C. C. C. Appeal No. 54 of 1954, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned Principal City Civil Judge of Madras in O. S. No. 1568 of 1950.(2) The facts arising for consideration lie within a brief compass and have been established beyond doubt. The plaintiff Maheswari is the wife of the deceased Palanivel Nadar. Palanivel Nadar has a brother-in-law by name C. M. Thyagarajan. This Thyagarajan was the agent of the defendant insurance company, the All India General Insurance Company Limited. Palanival Nadar, as appears from the evidence, was a heavy drinker and afflicted with syphilis. On 2-1-1948 the deceased Palanivel Nadar took out a life assurance policy bearing No. 11096 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Palanivel Nadar died on 13-6-1948 surviving him the plaintiff Maheswari and two minor children. The claim of Maheswari was disputed by the defendant company.T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]57STC290(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessees in this case are doing business in stationery. They returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 21,38,873.70 for the assessment year 1975-76. They have maintained during that year all the required books of account except stock book, which every wholesale dealer is bound to maintain under rule 26(9) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. On the ground that the assessees have not maintained any stock account for the goods dealt in by them, which is a material defect warranting an addition of 1 per cent of the taxable turnover to the book turnover, the assessing authority added a turnover over of a sum of Rs. 20,977 (1 per cent of Rs. 20,97,749) to the book turnover of the assessees, while making the assessment on the best judgment basis. Against the said addition of 1 per cent, the assessees filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, however, sustained the addition on the ground that the assessees who are bound to maintain the stock a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC1; (1998)IIMLJ580
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. These cases are placed before us for disposal on reference made by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.1.1996.2. The question that came up for consideration before the Division Bench was, whether the canteen run in the second respondent factory, which is statutorily obligatory, can be treated as part and parcel of the establishment of the management, or it can be treated as an independent entity, not coming under the management, and thereby the workmen working therein not becoming the members of the establishment of the management.3. A Division Bench of this Court, in Workmen Employed in the Canteen Run by S.R.F. Ltd., Madras v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 1995 (1) L.L.N. 487 took the view that the canteen is run by the contractor or a co-operative society; the employer in relation to the workers engaged in the canteen will be the contractor or the society, as the case may be, and not the proprietor of the factory, and in such...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC317; (1997)IILLJ972Mad
R.R. Jain, J. 1. Both these Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3133 of 1993 decided on May 16, 1995. Writ Appeal No. 806/1995 is filed by original respondents whose claims were rejected by the Single Judge. Though the Judgment in Writ Appeal went in favour of the original petitioner, still, feeling aggrieved by some of the observations, the original petitioner has also preferred W.A. No. 117/1997. Thus since both these writ a peals arise from the same judgment, and are Between the same parties involving identical questions of law and facts, they are decided by this common order. 2. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it would be worthwhile to briefly state the facts giving rise to these appeals. For the sake of convenience the status of parties as impleaded in W. A. No. 806/1995 is referred to herein under : The appellants, about 15 employees were in service of the second respondent TIAM House Service Limited, Madras-1. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1985Mad23
Sathiadev, J. 1. These appeals are preferred against a common judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Padmanabhan in W. P. Nos. 1127 and 7078 of 1980, 1049 of 1981 and 2415 and 2416 of 1982 (Reported in AIR 1994 Mad 292). Writ Appeal No. 377 of 1983 is directed against W. P. No. 7078 of 1980, and W. A. Nos. 715 and 716 of 1984 are against W. P. No. 2146 of 1982 and WP No. 1127 of 1980. The writ petitions were filed by merchants who have their shops in Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose Road, Rattan Bazaar Road and Rang Nathan Street in Madras, and they have sought for issue of writs of Mandamus directing the respondents, i.e., the Commissioner of Corporation of Madras and the Commissioner of Police, Madras, to remove the obstructions and encroachments made by unauthorised hawkers in those roads. The learned Judge held that, by permitting hawkers to carry on trade on the pavements of these roads, the Commissioner of' Corporation 'has permitted an unauthorised obstruction or encroachment of public str...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2002ACJ141; (2000)IILLJ568Mad; (2000)IIMLJ467
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The Management of the petitioner Mills has filed this writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and an individual praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent dated August 24, 1992 made in W.C. No. 249 of 1990 and quash the same.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Mill was established in the year 1982, when the area in which it was located was not covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act (ESI Act) that by Notification dated March 27, 1986, the said Act was extended to the area; that by notice dated April 24, 1987, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation informed that the petitioner's establishment was covered under the E. S.I. Act with effect from April 1, 1986 and a code number was also allotted to the petitioner's establishment and on and from the date of coverage, the petitioner was making contribution to the Corporation in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of quo warranto to show cause as to how the third respondent holds the post of Director of Public Libraries and to direct the first respondent thereby declare the third respondent as unfit to continue in the post of Director of Public Libraries in view of lack of required educational qualification.ORDER1. Whether a Director of Public Libraries can be appointed without minimum qualification as per the statutory rules? is the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition.2. The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition for the issuance of writ in the nature of quo warranto to show cause as to how the third respondent is holding the office of the Director of Public Libraries when he is lacking even the minimum qualification prescribed for the said post.3. When the writ petition came up on 14.2.2011, on noticing that the petitioner has earlier filed a writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!