Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ885Mad; (1998)IMLJ14
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This writ Appeal is directed against the order dated June 26, 1996 of N. Y. Balasubramanian, J., in w.p. No. 13013 of 1985. The petitioner leollege is the appellant. 2. The Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College at Sivakasi, filed the writ petition to call for the records of the 3rd respondentl]Private Colleges Appellate Tribunal relating to its proceedings dated September 17,1985 made in Second Appeal (TAC) No. 4 of 1982 and quash the same. 3. The short facts that are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:-The lst respondent A. Pandian was appointed as Dem-onstrator in Chemistry in a temporary vacancy on August 6, 1977. The order of appointment clearly said that the appointment was purely temporary for 1977-78. On the expiry of the one year period, his services came to an end on the closure of the college. He was paid vacation salary upto June 15, 1978. For the year 1978-79, a regular vacancy for the post of Demonstrator arose and the lst respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(3)CTC255
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. All these actions-this Batch of Writ Petitions-filed by Importers-Dealers or otherwise - of motor vehicles into local area from any 1997/3/17 place outside the State of Tamil Nadu for use or sale herein- owning motor vehicle at the time of its entry into the local area-are analogous in nature.2. The thrust and focus - either on pure questions of law constitutional or otherwise or on facts the existence of which is a matter of proof-giving risk to legal figment ~ are mostly common or similar.3. Irrespective of the nomenclature of these actions-Writs - Whether for Declaration, mandamus. Prohibition and what not - the fact remains-constitutional questions revolving on :(i) Legislative competence ;(ii) Colourable piece of Legislation;(iii) Violation of rights under Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India (for short Constitution);(iv) Absence of prior approval of the President of India under the Proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution.;(v) Challenge on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC630; (1998)IIMLJ722
ORDERJudgement pronounced by D. Raju, J.1. The above second appeals were placed before us under the orders of the Honourable the Chief Justice pursuant to the order of reference dated 25.4.1989 made by K. Venkataswami, J.,(as the learned Judge then was), in view of an apparent conflict said to have been noticed by the learned Judge on account of diametrically opposite views found to have been taken in two decisions reported in Kannammal v. G. Panchakshara chetty1988 (2) L.W. 11 rendered by E.J.Bellie, J. and in Ramanujam Kavirayar v. Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannathi Avargal1988 (2) L.W. 513 rendered by M. Srinivasan, J., (as the learned Judge then was). The relevant portion of theorder of reference, which explained the need and justification for making thereference reads as follows:- 'Justice Srinivasan has taken the view that the Notification under Section 3 will not have the effect of extinguishing the right in the land, but it recognises the pre- existing right. This is what ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1998)3MLJ595
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. The pristine questions referred to this Full Bench for consideration by the Division Bench run thus : (1) Whether transfer is an incident of service when it is neither specifically provided nor prohibited under the Rules or Regulations of conditions of Service applicable to teachers and others in private schools?(2) Is not the School Committee in respect of a non-minority institution entitled to stipulate conditions of service for teachers and others employed in private schools, which are not in conflict with Section 19 read with Rule 15 and Form VII-A?(3) Is not a minority corporate management entitled to effect transfers of those employed in the Schools established and administered by the Educational Agency, when the rules framed by the Government do not touch upon the power of transfer?(4) Would not the expression 'administer' in Article 30(1) of the Constitution take within its fold the exercise of power of transfer as involved in this matter?2. Proceedings or...
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 : (1998)3MLJ145
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the main question to be considered is the scope of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989.2. Under Section l7-C of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, it shall be lawful for the State Government to grant to any person or persons on such conditions and for such period as they may deem fit the exclusive of other privilege, (a) of manufacturing Indian Made foreign spirits, or (b) of selling by retail Indian made foreign spirits, within any local area.3. Section 20 of that Act provides for Permits and Licences. Section 20(d) reads thus:The State Government or any Officer empowered by them in this behalf may issue(a) to (c) xxxxxxxx(d) licences to any person to possess liquor and to issue it to persons or insititutions who hold permits or licences under this Act or who have been exempted under this Act from so much of the provisions of Section 4, Sub-Section (1), Clauses (a) or (j), as relates to the possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC236; (2001)8SCC676; AIR2001SC2861
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In these appeals, in the tight of the contentions raised by the parties, the only question that needs to be answered is, whether Bharathidasan University, Palkalai Perur, Tiruchirappalli in this State of Tamil Nadu, should seek approval of AH India Council for Technical Education to start technicalcourses in the University or to start a Technical Institute to conduct technical courses. For convenience, hereafter we will refer to the said University as 'University' and the All India Council for Technical Education as 'Council'.3. Writ Appeal No.1308 of 1998 is filed by the University and Bharathidasan Institute for Engineering and Technology. Writ Appeal No.1309 of 1998 is filed by a student, who was respondent No.4, impleaded in the Writ Petition No.14558 of 1998 and Writ Appeal No.1326 of 1998 is filed by another student, who was not a party in the writ petition, but after seeking leave from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2000)IILLJ593Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the notice of the respondent dated August 16, 1990, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and having a factory at Ennore, wherein it is engaged in the manufacture of medium duty commercial vehicles. It is covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The company has engaged various third parties and contractors for the purpose of carrying out various activities including repairs to buildings, plant and machinery and for the purpose of doing various repairs. Various activities including supply of materials, is entrusted to third parties who at times carry out work inside the factory premises of the company. The management has no method of knowing whether these contractors or third parties at all employ persons and if so, the number of persons who are in employment with such...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ1146Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated November 24, 1989, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 3585 of 1990 for quashing the same and also for consequential direction, directing the second respondent to notionally reinstate him with full back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits including seniority and promotion. The same petitioner has filed another writ petition, namely, W.P.No. 15384 of 1991 seeking a direction for payment of post terminal benefits including pension together with interest forthwith without prejudice to the contention in Writ Petition No. 3 585 of 1990. In view of the issue involved in both the writ petitions, they are disposed of by the following common order.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- According to him, he joined services in the 2nd respondent as Secondary Grade Assistant on June 10, 1970. Even though he had unblemished record of service, disciplinary proceedings were i...
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!