Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ509Mad
ORDER1. W.P. No. 5069 of 1997 is for mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to enforce the mandatory provisions of the Trade Unions Act with reference to the constitution of the third respondent and to see that the Rules and Bye-laws of the third respondent conform to the Model Constitution as provided for by the Rules framed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the office bearers of the third respondent as per the Trade Unions Act. 2. W.P. No. 12043 of 1989 is also by the same person for quashing the order of the first respondent in his B-3/11122/88 dated June 20, 1989. 3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows : The petitioner is a member of the third respondent-union. The 3rd respondent is registered, from 1961. Chapter 36 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the rules 3610 to 3618 therein specify the circumstances for recognition of a Union by the Railways. Third respondent-union was recognised by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ212
ORDER.In pursuance of the proviso to Clause (i) of Article 213 of the Constitution, the President approves the promulgation, by the Governor of Tamil Nadu of the Tamil Nadu Stage Carriages and Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1972.By order and in the name of the President.(Sd.) B. Shukla.'(Deputy Secretary to the Government of India.)The above is the first stage for the promulgation of the Ordinance . It may be seen that the President's assent under the Constitution is required in the following cases : (1) Article 31 (3) when a law referred to in Article 31 (2) has been reserved for consideration of the President; (2) Article 31-A first proviso, where a law falling under Article 31 -A relating to acquisition of estates is made by the Legislature of a State; (3) Under Article 254 (2) when there is an inconsistency between the laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislature of a State. The instructions under the proviso to Article 213 takes the place of the previous s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)IMLJ453
ORDER1. Originally the revision was filed by the landlords in R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1985, viz., petitioners 1 and 2 herein. Pending disposal of the revision, first petitioner died and his legal representatives, namely, petitioners 3 to 5 have been brought on record as per Order in CM.P. No. 84 of 1996 dated 19-1-1996. The said R.C.O.P. was filed before the Rent Controller, Udumalpet.2. The material averments in the eviction petition are as follows :--The schedule building originally belonged to one Srinivasa lyeugar and Janaki Animal, who executed a possessory mortgage in favour of one Jagannatha Iyengar. That was dated 12-10-1949. The mortgagee came into possession. On 11-1-1968, the mortgagee inducted Chinnappa Gounder as a tenant of the building. He is the predecessor of respondents 1 and 2 in this case. He was doing business along with one Kuttappan who lived in the back portion of the schedule premises. He is dead and the third respondent is claiming as his legal heir.3. It is seen th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1992)2MLJ159
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction of like nature of a writ, directing the second respondent to reship the consignment of 20 Tonnes each of raisins lying with the first respondent back to the supplier at Turkey after complying with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.7.1991.... 2. The petitioner-Devasthanam obtained an import licence for the import of dried grapes (raisins) vide licence No. 0348730, dated 30.1.1989 for a value of Rupees 40 Lakhs. The raisins to be imported by the petitioner-Devasthanam is for preparing prasadams like Laddus etc. As per the licence, the import has to be routed through the State Trading Corporation, the second respondent herein, and as such the petitioner-Devasthanam had to import the dried grapes through the second respondent herein. The Executive Officer of the petitioner-Devasthanam sent a telex on 28.8.1990 to the second respondent requestin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1999)2MLJ322
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner-association aggrieved against the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 292, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (B1) Department, dated 21.12.1998 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 21.12.1998, has filed the above writ petition.2. According to the petitioner, its members are mainly engaged in the cultivation of paddy for their livelihood. The paddy so produced by them was being sold to the paddy dealers without any restriction.3. Under the impugned orders, the 1st respondent government introduced the monopoly system of procurement in Cauvery Delta area, which has been described specifically in the said order. According to the said order, the paddy in those areas shall be purchased only by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., on behalf of the 1st respondent, and there shall be no purchase of paddy/rice from the whole sale dealer in the above areas. With respect to the price, according to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009(165)LC186(Madras)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. In these three appeals, the following Substantial Questions of Law arise for consideration.i) Whether the Customs Circular No. 26/07, dated 20.7.2007 is legally correct ?ii) Whether the appellant is liable to pay the interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, when no duty is paid in cash, as having been exempted as per Notification 05/2002 and 96/2004 ?iii) Whether, adjustment of credit granted by the Government on export of goods in the DEPB towards import duty payable buy for the exemption is equivalent to payment of duty in cash ?iv) Whether clearance of goods from the warehouse after 90 days means that payment of duty due to the Government was delayed so as to earn interest by the Government ?2. The appellant, who is the holder of private bonded warehouse licences No. 02/84 and 1/2005 issued under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 received Acid Grade Flourspar falling under Chapter heading 25 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 from the Customers Bonded wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(2006)BC146; [2005]125CompCas820(Mad); [2006]69SCL42(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petitioner is the workers' union which seeks for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the sixth respondent is null and void. The first respondent-company went into financial difficulties and therefore, a reference was made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' in short) for framing a scheme. Originally, the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) was appointed as the operating agency and thereafter, it was replaced by the State Bank of India. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioners also took part. It was decided that it was necessary to sell some of the immovable properties belonging to the first respondent in order to facilitate rehabilitation. The first respondent owns properties all over India. The manner in which such sale should take place was also laid down. As against the order of the BIFR, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Fin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDER1. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner herein seeks a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional and Sessions and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore, and to recall the order made in M.P No.629 of 2009 dated 1.10.2010 in C.C.No.6 of 2008, in which, the trial court proceeded to take cognizance against him by arraying as A.3 based on the charge sheet filed by the respondent for the offence under Secs.120-b, 420, 468, 471 PC r/w 13 (2) r/w 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and to quash the entire proceedings.2. The facts of the case which led to filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner and others are as follows:One Gunasekar (A.2), is the proprietor of Appu Apparels Exports, dealing with export of readymade garments. One Muthukumarasamy (A.1), the petitioner herein (A.3) and one Selvaraj (A.4) were working as Superintendents of Customs and Central Excise ICD Coimbatore from 2001...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 26.04.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the counsels for both the parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 Complaint praying for the relief against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.30,55,364.38 for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and for costs. 2. The details of complaint in brief as follows : The complainant union is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Acts having its head office at Krishnagiri for the purpose of upliftment of economic status of the members of the Milk Producers of Co-operative Societies in rural area and functioning from the year 1982 with operational area of Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri Districts. For the purpose of business transaction tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25. 06.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P.No.2721 of 2013 T.Sathishkumar (a) Sathish (a) Kumar (a) Mandapam Sathish .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) F Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City. 3.The Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Department), North Block, New Delhi. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the entire records relating to petitioner's detention under the National Security Act, vide detention order dated 8.10.2013 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C.No.03/NSA/IS/2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner namely T...
Tag this Judgment!