Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ21
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is a Matriculation School, represented by its Secretary and the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.A. No. 278 of 2007 in I.D. No. 83 of 2005 is under challenge in this writ petition.2. In the said order dated 15.10.2007, the first respondent Labour Court rejected the plea made by the petitioner School Management and held that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the second respondent under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act [for short, 'I.D. Act'].3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. S. Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the records.4. The writ petition is filed only against the preliminary order passed by the Labour Court and at this stage, it is not necessary to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the self-imposed restric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2006]134CompCas237(Mad); (2007)1CompLJ261(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The secured creditor Industrial Development Bank of India, Chennai, obtained a decree on November 21, 2001, against the debtor Rajalakhmi Mills Limited, Singanallur, Coimbatore, in O.A. No. 91 of 2000 from the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. As the debtor failed to pay the amount, the Recovery Officer brought the mortgaged property in an extent of 20 acres 87 cents of land situated at Uppilipalayam village, Coimbatore District for sale in D.R.C. No. 79 of 2002. In that sale, one Ramajeyam, the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 25636 of 2004 has knocked down the property for a sum of Rs. 15.08 crores. The said auction purchaser deposited 25 per cent of the amount on the date of sale on August 30, 2004, and the balance amount of Rs. 11.31 crores on September 30, 2004, as per the terms of the sale notice. While that being so, on September 7, 2004, writ petition in W.P. No. 25635 of 2004, was filed by Times Guarantee Limited seeking for the relief of writ of manda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)IILLJ474Mad
ORDERS. Mohan, Offg. C.J.1. The short facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows : 2. The first respondent-Bank was constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act 23 of 1955). The said Act came into force on 1st July 1955. According to sub-section (3) of Section of 4 the said Act the service conditions of the employees of the Imperial Bank of India were to be the same as on 1st July 1955. It was on that date the Imperial Bank of India was taken over by the State Bank of India. The terms and conditions of service were duly altered by the State Bank of India. The appellant joined the services of the first respondent-Bank as Law Officer on a contractual basis on terms and conditions contained in the offer of appointment dated 24th October 1977. On 2nd February 1978 an order of appointment was issued in and by which he was appointed for a period of three years with option to the Bank to absorb him as a Law Officer on long term basis on satisfactory completion of the initial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999]236ITR872(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, in TCP No. 417/79 dt. 14th September, 1980, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion under s. 27(3) of the WT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that s. 35 of the WT Act, 1957 cannot be invoked in the assessee's case for the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?' 2. In the asst. yr. 1972-73, the WTO in his order dt. 31st May, 1975 under s. 35 of the Act, added a sum of Rs. 45,700 as a liability due by the assessee to the Life Insurance Corporation, omitted to be disallowed in the original assessment made on 20th February, 1973 wherein such liability has been allowed as a deduction. According to the WTO, rectification is possible, since the liability in question being secured and (sic-against) the life insurance policies in respect of which no wealth tax was chargeable, had been wrongly allowed and the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1966)2MLJ389
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant. In R.C.O.P. No. 20 of 1960 the respondent landlord sought for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act of 1960. The landlord claimed that he was carrying on business in a rented premises, which premises was wholly inadequate to his needs. On that ground he purchased the premises in question. In 1958, he had filed an application R.C.O.P. No. 22 of 1958 under the repealed Act, which was dismissed, as also an appeal there from. The ground upon which that petition was dismissed was that under the old Act, the landlord who was in occupation, for the purposes of his business, of a premises, to the possession of which he was entitled, that is to say, as a tenant, was not eligible to the relief of eviction of his tenant from premises which might be the landlord's own. The new Act, by Section 10(3)(a)(iii), however made a departure, and enabled the landlord to obtain possession of the premises which he had let out, so long a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
In W.P.(MD)No.9241 of 2004, the petitioner is a trade union seeking to challenge a notice issued under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 28.08.2003 issued by the second respondent co-operative society. In the notice issued under Section 9-A, it was informed that the settlement under Section 12(3) entered into by the then board of directors without prior permission dated 17.08.1999 cannot be implemented in view of the illegality in entering into the settlement and that the society was recurring heavy losses during the relevant period. Already steps were taken by the Provident Fund Department through distraint proceedings. Dues are to be paid to the ESIC also. Therefore, since the settlement was signed without prior permission and it was terminated with effect from 31.08.2003. The workers were informed that the amounts will be paid with effect from 01.09.2003 only as per earlier settlement dated 15.05.1992. 2.The petitioner union filed a writ petition before the Principal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Ref.SZ/P and IR/Desk-III dated 21.08.2015 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in accordance with Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 and Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987.) 1. Several writ petitions have been filed by the Development Officers, who are presently working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, CBO-IV branch, Madurai and other branches, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chennai ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1964)1MLJ34
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The question that stands referred to us for determination is:Whether the unabsorbed losses incurred by the assessee in the earlier years in its Life Insurance business are available to set off against its profits from the General Insurance business for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1954-55 ?2. The assessee is the Prithvi Insurance Company, Ltd., Madras. The assessment years in question are 1951-52 to 1954-55. During the account years relevant to these assessment years, the assessee was carrying on business of Life Insurance as well as General Insurance, inclusive of Fire, Marine, Accident and miscellaneous insurance. Under the Insurance Act, the assessee, though his business is a composite one, has to prepare separate accounts for the Life Insurance business as distinct from other lines of insurance. The Life Insurance part of the business resulted in losses for a number of years. The General Insurance business yielded a profit in these years. The assessee claimed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1991)ILLJ62Mad
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.1. Appellants were the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7557 of 1984. Appellants 1 to 7 are the legal representatives of some deceased employees of the respondent-management. They sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent-management to release and settle the withheld payments of death benefits due to them as dependents of the deceased employees, and to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 each together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent annum calculated from the due date. The writ petition was resisted and by judgment dated 14th December, 1984, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Seven employees viz., (1) Shanmugam (2) G. Kulandaiswamy (3) R. Selvanathan (4) R. Mariappan (5) Sambandam (6) C. Chellappan and (7) Md. Usman died while in the service of the management-respondent on 26th June 1977, 8th May 1982, 30th October 1983, 2nd October 1983, 27th December 1983, 30th August 1983...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1986)1MLJ59
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 364 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 22,812/-with subsequent interest and costs.2. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, is as follows:- The plaintiff is the husband of late Nachiammal. Nachiammal had taken out two life insurance policies under Policy Nos. 12034935 and 44550825. The former was for Rs. 10,000/-and the latter was for Rs. 20,000/-. The insured Nachiammal died on 1.2.1973 suddenly at Vellore, where she had gone to her son's house, and where she was a partner in a business under the name and style of 'Srinivasa Textiles'. On 7.3.73 the plaintiff, who was the nominee in both the above insurance policies, applied to the defendant for payment of the amount due under them. The plaintiff had also enclosed the original policies, death certificate, and filed the claim after observing all the formalities. The defendant accepte...
Tag this Judgment!