Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-18-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)WLC723; 1999(1)WLN478
b.s. chauhan, j.1. in all these cases, the validity of the provision of rule 5 of the rajasthan compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased government. servants rules, 1996 (for short, 'the rules') has been challenged as being unconstitutional, ultra-vires and arbitrary.2. the relevant rules, for determination of the controversy, read as under:2 (c) 'dependent' means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter legally adopted by the deceased government servant during his/her life-time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death.rule-5 appointment subject to certain condition-when a government servant dies while in service, one of his/her dependents may be considered for appointment in government service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or atleast one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/daughter of the deceased government servant is already employed on regular basis under the cental government/state government or statutory board, organisation or corporation owned or controlled by the central/state government at the time of death of the government servant.provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself.3. learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases have vehemently submitted that the rules have been framed to provide employment to one of the dependents of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-13-1999
Reported in : 2(2000)ACC648; 2000(2)WLC132
v.s. kokje, j.1. this is an appeal by the insurance company on two points. the first point is as to whether the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as taken by the motor accident claims tribunal deciding the case and the second point is as to whether the quantum of compensation granted was exorbitant, in the circumstances of the case.2. on the first point, the learned counsel for the insurance company now feel satisfied that he has no case, as under the policy extra premium has been paid for making the liability of the insurance company unlimited. he, therefore, does not press the first point. so far as the second point is concerned, an insurance company can contest the case on merits of grant of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. this is an appeal arising out of an accident, the claim petition in respect of which was governed by the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the ground on which the insurance company could defend the claim petition were limited and on the point of quantum of compensation the insurance company could not contest the case. section 110-c(2-a) of the act provided that where, in the course of any inquiry, the claims tribunal is satisfied that--(i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-15-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC4; 2000(67)ECC499
orderjudgement pronounced by n.k. jain, j.1. this writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.4.1999 in w.p.no.4993 of 1999 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition seeking to quash order dated 19.2.1999 on the ground of delay.2. the necessary facts for the disposal of this writ appeal as alleged, are that the petitioner s.rajendran is the proprietor of m/s.sterling exchange corporation. he is also the managing director of m/s.goodluck forex (i) ltd.a computer with data particulars and cash of rs.16 lakhs were seized on a search conducted in the office of the petitioner on 22.12.1997. the petitioner was arrested on 23.2.1998 and remanded to judicial custody. it is alleged that he filed w.p.no.1909 of 1998, for quashing the proceedings dated 18.6.1998 whereunder the time limit for retaining the documents seized, was extended. another w.p.no.1910 of 1999 was filed for the return of seized currency of rs.16 lakhs. it is also alleged that w.p.no.6184 of 1999 was filed against the show cause notice issued as to why the seized money and amounts blocked in various accounts in a sum of rs.38 lakhs and odd should not be confiscated. the petitioner was ordered to be detained under cofeposa act, 1974, vide order dated 19.2.1999, against which this writ petition has been filed.3. respondents 1 and 2 have filed detailed counter denying the allegations, as alleged. it is submitted that before execution of the detention order, the petitioner cannot ask for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-26-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)CTC736
order1. the above review application is directed against the order dated 26.11.1998, made in w.p.no. 20884 of 1992, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed in the following terms:'the petitioner seeks for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to sell the property at 75, poes garden, madras-86 to the petitioner.'it appears that the petitioner is the owner of door no. 76 poes garden, madras and the house at door no. 75, poes garden, madras- 86, is admittedly, owned by the first respondent, who invited sealed offers for disposing of the suit property, to which, the petitioner and the second respondent, made their offers. in spite of some negotiations between the first respondent and the second respondent in disposing the said property, the sale could not be finalised by the first respondent not satisfied with the terms of negotiations or the result thereon, the petitioner has approached this court for the above relief.i am of considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke article 226 of the constitution of india for the relief as prayed for in the writ petition, as the same is very much contractual in nature. hence the writ petition is dismissed.'2. mr.k. chandru, learned senior counsel for the review applicant contends that even though the review applicant/writ petitioner could not unfortunately be represented on 26.1.1998. the writ petition was disposed of only on the basis of the submission that even though the writ petitioner was invited .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-10-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)CTC235; 2000(67)ECC55
order1. it appears that the petitioner has reliably understood that the respondents are taking certain proceedings against him, with regard to an alleged act of smuggling said to have taken place on 14.5.1999 for non-declaration of certain goods brought by him from singapore, by singapore airlines, under the provisions of conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'cofeposa').2. the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner is illegal and invalid, inasmuch as the very market value of the goods, which is the subject matter of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, are estimated to the tune of rs. 10,82,250, without taking into account a sum of rs.1,00,000 towards the value of the goods declared by him. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the value of the goods shall be only a sum of rs. 9, 82,250, if the value of the goods declared is taken into consideration and consequently, the provisions of cofeposa are not attracted. the learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the legal and fundamental rights of the petitioner is seriously threatened due to the non-application of mind by the respondents, with regard to the allege estimation of the value of the goods and hence, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from taking any proceedings against the petitioner under .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-06-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)CTC525; (2000)1MLJ24
order1. the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw and cancel the condition contained in para 4(a) of the notice inviting tender dated 13.9.1999and issue a fresh notice inviting tender for the purpose of allotting money exchange counters at chennai which shall not include the said condition.2. the petitioners are carrying on business as money changers under valid licences given by the reserve bank of india at various places including chennai. till recently, according to the petitioner, the money changers/authorised dealers are permitted to operate money exchange counters at airports by private treaty. for the first time, the airport authority of india, chennai, the 1st respondents invited sealed tenders in the prescribed form from reputed authorised money exchange agencies, nationalised and foreign bank for setting up and operation of money exchange counters at 6 locations in anna international terminal and one location in the departure area of kdt. in the tender notice itself it is stated that the parties who are participating in the tender should possess minimum experience of 5 years of operating money exchange counter at ports/railways/airports. under clause 5 of the said notice it is also stated that the tender documents will be given only if the tenders fulfil the eligibility criteria mentioned therein.3. the petitioners having aggrieved by clause 4(a) and 5 of the said notice, have filed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1999
Reported in : (2001)IIILLJ169Mad
p. sathasivam, j.1. aggrieved by the common award in industrial dispute no. 96 of 1986, etc., dated september 10, 1990, on the file of the labour court, coimbatore, petitioners numbering 14 have filed the above writ petition for quashing the same and also for direction directing the second respondent to reinstate all the 14 persons with back wages and with attended benefits.2. the case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder:petitioners are employees of the second respondent herein. while they are ventilating their grievance through their union, the second respondent filed a complaint before the police. ultimately at the instance of the management the prosecution launched against the petitioners ended in acquittal. in respect of the same incident the second respondent initiated domestic enquiry and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer dismissed all the petitioners from service. thereafter the petitioners raised a separate industrial dispute before the third respondent. by a common award, dated september 10, 1990, the labour court upheld the action of the management in dismissing 14 petitioners, consequently dismissed all the applications, against which they filed the present writ petition.3. third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioners. it is stated that on february 16, 1983 at about 5.30 p.m. about 20 workmen from mudimund division along with another 20 workmen from the 18th division went in a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-22-1999
Reported in : (2000)ILLJ1533Mad
e. padmanabhan, j.1. in w.p. no. 17938 of 1998, the writ-petitioner bharat heavy electricals ltd., ranipet, prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent deputy chief inspector of factories, vellore, from in any manner continuing with the proceedings no. 3775 of 1998, dated may 19, 1998 and no. 6151 of 1997, dated july 23, 1998.2. w.p. no. 263 of 1989, has been filed , by the bhel thuppuravu thozhilalar sangam, bhel ltd. ranipet, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent namely the management of bhel, ranipet, to implement the notification in g.o. ms. no. 2082, issued by the government of tamil nadu, labour and employment department, dated september 19, 1998 and also to regularise all the existing workmen employed for sweeping and scavenging and to fix them in the regular scales of pay, with effect from october 1, 1998.3. w.p. no. 20325 of 1993 has been filed by the bhel thozhilaga thuppuravu thozhilalar sangam, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the notification of the government of tamil nadu in g.o. ms. no. 2082, labour and employment, dated september 19, 1988, and regularise the services of the members of the petitioner-sangam in the second respondent-management extending to them all benefits and privileges to which they are legitimately entitled from october 1, 1988.4. all the three writ petitions are' consolidated and taken up for hearing. for convenience, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-26-1999
Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ796Mad
y. venkatachalam, j. 1. invoking article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner-association herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of declaration declaring clause 12(a) of the mfl service policy, dated march 8, 1985, as illegal and null and void and not binding on the members of the petitioner-association.2. in support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they nave narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow their writ petition as prayed for. per contra, on behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them, one after the other, and ultimately requested this court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties. i have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. i have also taken into consideration the various points raised by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments.4. in the above circumstances, the only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not5. the brief facts of the case of the petitioner-association, as .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-20-1999
Reported in : (1999)2MLJ616
orderm. karpagavinayagam, j.1. shanmugha sadachara servai, the petitioner herein is the plaintiff in o.s. no. 31 of 1989 on the file of district munsif, kovilpatti. he filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. after trial, the said suit was dismissed. though he instructed his lawyer to file an appeal after getting the copies of the judgment and decree, the copy application was not filed in time. therefore, he engaged some other lawyer to whom he instructed to file an appeal. in the process of filing the appeal, there was a delay of 94 days. therefore, the petitioner filed an application in i.a. no. 530 of 1991 to condone the said delay under section 5 of the limitation act. the petitioner examined himself as p. w. 1 in the enquiry conducted on this application. the reasons for causing the delay of 94 days were given by p. w. 1 in the deposition. he was also cross-examined. after consideration of the materials and submissions of the counsel for both the parties, the court of subordinate judge, tuticorin dismissed the petition on the ground that the details of the dates have not been clearly given either in the petition or in the deposition. this order is being challenged in this revision.2. according to the petitioner, after the judgment dated 31.1.1991 was passed by the trial court dismissing the suit, he instructed his erstwhile counsel mr. umasankar to apply for the copies of the judgment and decree to file an appeal. but, he was advised to wait for .....Tag this Judgment!