You may also like...
-
The court made the observation while imposing Rs 25,000 as costs to condone a delay of 1,069 days on the part of the State’s Education Department in filing an appeal (State of Tamil Nadu and ors. v. M Ruby). The Bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and B Pugalendhi observed,
by Sekar Reporter · Published November 15, 2020
-
![Judge s vaithiyanathan sir dismissed the Writ Petition and disagreeing with the decision rendered by this Court in S.Balasubramanian and others vs. State, reported in (2013) 2 LW (Cri) 289, referred the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the following issues: i) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the Government is going to sanction prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for not implementing the provisions of the Act against persons falling under Section 32 of the Act, 1947; ii) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the words “as well as the Company” are absent under Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the same is not in pari materia with the provisions of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. [6/7, 14:48] Sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2021 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.2869 of 2021 P.Rajendran … Petitioner -vs- The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore Division – II) Ltd, Chennimalai Road, Erode-1.](http://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Judge s vaithiyanathan sir dismissed the Writ Petition and disagreeing with the decision rendered by this Court in S.Balasubramanian and others vs. State, reported in (2013) 2 LW (Cri) 289, referred the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the following issues: i) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the Government is going to sanction prosecution under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for not implementing the provisions of the Act against persons falling under Section 32 of the Act, 1947; ii) Whether a Company should be made as a party, when the words “as well as the Company” are absent under Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the same is not in pari materia with the provisions of Section 141 of the N.I.Act. [6/7, 14:48] Sekarreporter1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2021 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.2869 of 2021 P.Rajendran … Petitioner -vs- The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Coimbatore Division – II) Ltd, Chennimalai Road, Erode-1.
by Sekar Reporter · Published June 7, 2021
-
[12/6, 18:19] Sekarreporter: https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/the-honourable-mr-justice-m-s-ramesh-w-p-no-31230-of-2019thereby-adhering-to-the-principles-of-natural-justice-since-the-entire-action-of-sealing-the-petitioners-hotel-without-following-th/ [12/6, 18:19] Sekarreporter: thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice. Since the entire action of sealing the petitioner’s hotel without following the principles of natural justice is illegal, this Court would justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition stands allowed
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 6, 2019
