Chennai Court November 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nammalwar Vs. the District Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ172
A. S. Anand, C. J.1. The appellant's petition seeking a writ of mandamus to continue him as headmaster failed before the learned single Judge. He is in appeal.2. Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned single judge on the ground that by application of Rule 13 (1) (ii) of the Rules relating to Elementary Schools, the Appellant had a right to be declared permanent after serving the institution for a continuous period of one year, and by not giving him the benefit of the said rule, the judgment under appeal stood vitiated.3. To appreciate the contention raised by Mr. Subramaniam, it would be relevant to extract Rule 13 (1) (ii) of the said Rules. It reads as follows:R.13 (1) (ii) 'No qualified teacher shall be appointed in a permanent vacancy on a temporary basis or for a stipulated period. All appointments in permanent vacancies shall be made only on probation for a period of one year, but the management may before the expiry of that...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. K. Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ399
Anand, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge in W.P.No. 808 of 1979, decided on 6.7.1982.2. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case as the same have been given by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal.3. The sole ground on which the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge was the acquittal of the respondent in a criminal case. A criminal appeal at that time was admittedly pending in this Court The criminal appeal has since been dismissed though the order of confiscation of the goods has been confirmed.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon three Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Kanniahlal Jethaji v. Central Board and Excise and Customs, New Delhi W.A.No. 106 of 1977, dated 30.6.1977, Bhuvarlal v. the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, (W.A.No. 540 of 1982, dated 11-8.1989) and The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi v. M.K.S. Abubachu W.A.No...
The Management of Tafe Vs. Venkataraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1989
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ468Mad
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5313 of 1979. That writ petition, in its turn, was directed against the award of the second-respondent in I.D. No. 224 of 1978. In that industrial dispute, there was an adjudication by the second-respondent, on the question of the propriety of the non-employment of the first-respondent by the appellant. The first-respondent's services with the appellant were terminated in disciplinary action. The second-respondent upheld the propriety of the disciplinary action on merits. However, on the question of punishment, the second-respondent chose to interfere and directed reinstatement of the first respondent by the appellant, denying the first respondent back-wages from 17 August 1976, when he was suspended pending disciplinary action till the date of reinstatement. This award of the second-respondent had been examined by the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge found no ...
Arokiadass (P) Vs. Government of T.N. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1989
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ34Mad
Sathiadev, A.C. J. 1. This writ petition is filed to quash G. O. Ms. No. 1097 Labour Department, dated 22 May 1987, by stating that once again in spite of the earlier order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4734 of 1986, the Government had declined to make the reference by referring to circumstances which are irrelevant and inappropriate.2. While declining a reference on the earlier occasion by G.O.Ms. No. 259 Labour, dated 6 February 1986, the approach made by the Government was that the petitioner was more bent upon finding fault with the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer instead of denying the charges framed against him, and for the proved charges, the punishment imposed is appropriate. For reasons stated in Writ Petition No. 4734 of 1986 the matter having been remitted once again the Government had taken into account the nature of the charges and has observed that assaulting a security guard would only invite a punishment of dismissal, and if the behaviour or attitude of an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›