Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.06 seconds)
Documents citing Somasundaram vs Liyakat Ali And Another on 14 February, 1996

Special Officer vs Easwaran on 29 November, 2016

The judgment of this Court in Somasundaram V. Liyakat Ali [1997 (1) CTC 4] has been relied upon by the lower appellate Court in this case to hold that the suit is maintainable. However, the decision which was followed by the lower appellate Court has been overruled by this Court earlier and the law has been well settled by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case cited above. Having regard to the legal position and the implied exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court, this Court feel that the dispute can only be resolved by referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal or by availing the remedy provided under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Hence, the judgment of the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.87 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.196 of 2002 is set aside. The suit filed in O.S.No.196 of 2002 is dismissed. The Second Appeal is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Villupuram District Central vs R.Santhanam on 19 August, 2008

(d) The decision in Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali [1997 (1) CTC 4 = 1998 (2) LLJ 719] may not be a good law. The employees therein filed a Civil Suit regarding promotion issue. As remedy for the aggrieved parties in that case are available either under Section 153 or by an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they could not have gone before the Civil Court. Therefore, the bar under Section 156 of the Co-operative Societies Act as well as the implied ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court by the provisions of the I.D. Act will directly apply and the suit is barred.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - K R Pandian - Full Document

P. Eswaramoorthy vs R.J.B. Leoraj on 10 June, 2008

(d) The decision in Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali [1997 (1) CTC 4 = 1998 (2) LLJ 719] may not be a good law. The employees therein filed a Civil Suit regarding promotion issue. As remedy for the aggrieved parties in that case are available either under Section 153 or by an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they could not have gone before the Civil Court. Therefore, the bar under Section 156 of the Co-operative Societies Act as well as the implied ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court by the provisions of the I.D. Act will directly apply and the suit is barred.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 14 - K Chandru - Full Document

M.Siva Subramanian vs The Joint Registrar Of Cooperative ...

(d) The decision in Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali, 1997 (1) CTC 4 may not be a good law. The employees therein filed a Civil Suit regarding promotion issue. As remedy for the aggrieved parties in that case are available either under Section 153 or by an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they could not have gone before the Civil Court. Therefore, the bar under Section 156 of the Cooperative Societies Act as well as the implied ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court by the provisions of the I.D. Act will directly apply and the suit is barred.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

Arasa Kumar And Anr. vs Nallammal And Ors. on 19 March, 2004

23. A case arose between Somasundaram v. Liyakat Ali and Anr., , in respect of inter se seniority of employees under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and in the said Act also, there is a bar under Section 156 to bring out a civil suit. It was argued in the said case that the civil suit was not maintainable, by pointing out Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983; which states, "Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force nor order or award passed, decision or action taken or direction issued under this Act by an arbitrator, a liquidator, the Registrar or an officer authorised or empowered by him, the Tribunal or the Government or any officer subordinate to them, shall be liable to be called in question in any Court and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act."
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Unknown vs K.Raja on 23 December, 2009

19. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that before issuance of the termination order, no notice has been issued to the respondent-plaintiff. The principles of natural justice has not been followed. He shall be terminated only after giving him a fair opportunity to put forth his defence and after reasonable notice before termination. When the basic right of the respondent-plaintiff is infringed and if he was arbitrarily terminated without following due process of law, the Civil Court can always step in to protect the right of the individual. As per the decision of this Court reported in 1997 (1) CTC 4 (Somasundaram Vs. Liyakat Ali and another), which was relied on by the first appellate Court, the Civil Court has jurisdiction.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

The Nadippisai Pulavar K.R.Ramasamy vs Rajendran on 16 September, 2011

In 1998 II LLJ 109 Madras  Somasundaram vs. Liyakat Ali and another, it has been held that a reading of Section 156 makes it clear that to get protection under the Act, the authorities under the Act must pass orders or awards for which they are empowered under the Act and it is only those powers that cannot be called in question in a civil suit. That is the case where the plaintiff therein was a clerk in a cooperative society and he filed the suit for a declaration that the second defendant in the said suit is a junior to him and also for a declaration that the resolution passed by the first defendant therein appointing the second defendant as a senior clerk is illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. The second defendant contended that the suit is not maintainable. According to him, the plaintiff ought to have moved either under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act or under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was held that a civil suit, is barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said judgment may not be of any use to the present case on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.Subramanian vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 12 March, 2010

"19. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that before issuance of the termination order, no notice has been issued to the respondent-plaintiff. The principles of natural justice has not been followed. He shall be terminated only after giving him a fair opportunity to put forth his defence and after reasonable notice before termination. When the basic right of the respondent- plaintiff is infringed and if he was arbitrarily terminated without following due process of law, the Civil Court can always step in to protect the right of the individual. As per the decision of this Court reported in 1997(1) CTC 4 (Somasundaram Vs. Liyakat Ali and another), which was relied on by the first appellate Court, the Civil Court has jurisdiction.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

G.P.Meenakshisundaram vs The Deputy Registrar Of on 13 September, 2017

(d) The decision in Somasundaram Vs. Liyakat Ali (1997 (1) CTC 4 = 1998 (2) LLJ 719) may not be a good law. The employees therein filed a Civil Suit regarding promotion issue. As remedy for the aggrieved parties in that case are available either under Section 153 or by an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they could not have gone before the Civil Court. Therefore, the bar under Section 156 of the Cooperative Societies Act as well as the implied ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court by the provisions of the I.D. Act will directly apply and the suit is barred.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

P.S.Viswanathan vs The Deputy Registrar Of on 13 September, 2017

(d) The decision in Somasundaram Vs. Liyakat Ali (1997 (1) CTC 4 = 1998 (2) LLJ 719) may not be a good law. The employees therein filed a Civil Suit regarding promotion issue. As remedy for the aggrieved parties in that case are available either under Section 153 or by an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they could not have gone before the Civil Court. Therefore, the bar under Section 156 of the Cooperative Societies Act as well as the implied ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court by the provisions of the I.D. Act will directly apply and the suit is barred.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next