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 : (1985)2MLJ439
ORDERMohan, 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 Indian.2. We would first note the facts; relating to W.A. Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of W.P. Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. W.P. No. 2013 of 1979 is for mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manager, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1975 on the file of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, II, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C.V. Raman under Section 41 of the Act. W.P. No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for disposal T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1975.3. The emp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... spent fuel is not a waste, but is a resource which could be reprocessed for separating plutonium and uranium from other fission products and can be utilized in a closed cycle to generate more nuclear power. it is stated that the residue which remains after reprocessing is called "high level waste" and the same will be melted along with glass by ..... that many decades ago some of the nations used to dump nuclear waste in deep oceans away from habitat but that practice is over now and with the closed loop cycle, the waste generated per year from 1000 mw plant is less than 3% and that, after verification, would not occupy a space of about 6 cubic meters. the petitioners have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)IIMLJ367
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993, a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other Writ Petitions the prayer is for either issue of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaint or for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints. 2. The petitions can be classified into three groups :- A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(3)CTC660
..... mfg. co. v. m/s. bharat coking coal ltd.) in dealing with a challenge made to coking coal mines (nationalisation) act, 1972, it was held as hereunder :- '26. shri ashok sen drew pointed attention to the earlier affidavits filed on behalf of bharat coking coal company and commented severally on the alleged contradictory reasons given therein for the exclusion of certain .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ264
..... emerges out of the expression? the person driving holds a licence to drive' used in the proviso to clause (b) in this aforesaid term. one who drives a motor cycle is a driver. what is, therefore, the meaning of the expression 'drive' or 'driver' appearing in the policy? if the insurance company had intended to subject the insured ..... agreement.(b) any other person who is driving on the insurer's order or with his permission. provided that the person driving held its licence to drive the motor cycle or has held and is not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence'.the concept which emerges from the expression 'duly licensed' as contended by mr. patel ..... shailesh kumar pandurao thakore 1974 a.c.j. 393 it was held that the expression 'driving licence' means the person driving holds a licence to drive the motor cycle and that the said expression includes not a fully qualified and regularly licensed driver but it also means a learner driver. in paragraph 23 of the judgment it is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force. learned counsel also referred to the decision reported in (2002) 8 scc 18.(kaiser-i-hind pvt. ltd. and ors. vs. national textile corporation (maharashtra north) ltd. and ors.). the said decision also does not help the petitioner where the issue was as regards the repugnancy ..... , (2012) 7 scc 10.(state of kerala and ors. vs. mar appraem kuri company ltd. and anr) at paragraph nos.47 and 57 and (2002) 8 scc 18.(kaiser-i-hind pvt. ltd. and ors. vs. national textile corporation (maharashtra north) ltd. and ors.) at paragraph nos.53 and 65.68. mr.r.krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :08. 09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.671 of 2014 Meharraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1) The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by Secretary to Government, Home (Prison IV) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2) The Additional Director General of Police, Egmore, Chennai-600 0085. 3) The Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai. 4) Mr.Palani, The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy. 5) Mr.Senthil Kumar, The Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to transfer the husband of the petitioner namely, Mohammed Hanifa aged about 34 years from Trichy Central Prison to Madurai Central Prison or Palayamkottai Central Prison and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)2MLJ367
Srinivasan, J.1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993 a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b)) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other writ petitions the prayer is for either issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaints or for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints.2. The petitions can be classified into three Groups:A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Institutions:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :- 25.06.2013 Coram The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.9391 & 9723 of 2013 W.P.No.9391 of 2013 ------------------- Saravanan .. Petitioner vs.1. The Secretary to Government, Co-operation food and consumer protection department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Election Commissioner, Co-operative Societies, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.3. The District Co-operative Societies Election Officer, Dharmapuri District. Dharmapuri.4. The Electoral Officer, Dharmapuri District Public Library Employees Co-operative, Thrift and Credit Society Limited, DD-159, District Central Library, Dharmapuri 636 701.5. The Special Officer, Dharmapuri District Public Library Employees Co-operative, Thrift and Credit Society Limited, DD-159, District Central Library, Dharmapuri 636 701.6. The State Commissioner of Disabled, Tamilnadu State, Govt. Peripheral Hospital Campus, Jawaharlal Nehr...
Tag this Judgment!