Chennai Court January 2000 Judgments
Ganapathy Subramaniam J. Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ813Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. In these matters, the subject-matter involved as well as the respondents are common, both these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petitions seeking for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from any deductions from the petitioner's salary for May 8 1992, May 9, 1992, May 10, 1992, May 15, 1992 and May 16, 1992 (in Writ Petition No. 7794 of 1992) and for May 16, 1992 (in W.P No. 7795 of 1992) on the principle of 'no work no pay' from the salary payable to the petitioners for the month of May 1992 or for subsequent months.3. In support of these writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the writ peti...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannathan V.B. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ572Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner in the above writ petition prays to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement staff circular No. PER/75/86 Personnel Department, State Bank of India, dated December 26, 1986 to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 45,000/- and sanction three advance annual increments.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he joined Ponparappi Branch of State Bank of India as Clerk/Typist on July 23, 1984; that on September 1, 1987 at about 11.45 a.m., when the petitioner was working in the counter, a group of dacoits entered into the Bank with sten gun with intent to loot the public money and started threatening the staff with dire consequences and after shooting down the Cashier Nandakumar, they attempted to enter into the safe, that when the petitioner prevented them from entering into the safe, the dacoits opened fire at him and caused serious bullet injuries on his right leg, but had a mirac...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Thanjavur Textiles Ltd. Vs. P.O., I Additional Labour Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1015Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The management of Thanjavur Textiles Limited, Thanjavur has filed this writ petition against the Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Madras and an individual/ workman viz. V.P. Rajendran praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Award passed by the first respondents in I.D. No. 35 of 1982, dated March 30, 1990 and quash the same.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, narrating his case, the petitioner would contend that pursuant to the order of reference made by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No. 80 Labour and Employment dated January 11, 1982, I.D. No. 35 of 1982 was taken up by the first respondent for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent. The petitioner would further contend that according to the work load fixation award Ref. B. 1 14865 dated April 1, 1974 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the question of production for an operator in the Dobbler Win...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan P.N. and ors. Vs. Governor, Reserve Bank of India and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ861Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of Declaration to declare the provisions of Regulation 3(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990 insofar as it tries to exclude those on leave preparatory to retirement (the petitioners herein) as unconstitutional, ultra vires of the Constitution and the very object of the Pension Regulation.2. In the averments of the accompanying affidavit of the writ petition, the petitioners would state that they are all retired employees of the Reserve Bank of India having served the Bank till they attained superannuation; that the services of the petitioners were regulated by Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, which regulates, among other things, the superannuation and retirement; that the Regulation 26 reads:'26(1) An employee, other than an employee in Class IV, shall retire at 58 years of age and an employee in Class IV at 60 years of age.Provided that in the case of an ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Rajagopalan Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC105
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction forbearing the first respondent from demanding or insisting upon the petitioner to produce another caste or community certificate from any other competent authority but continue to act on the basis of the community certificate already produced by the petitioner dated 10.12.1965 from the Deputy Tahsildar Mettur.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected as Assistant Executive Engineer Grade II by the first respondent under SC/ST quota on anapplication in 1974 and confirmed in the said post. At the time of application and subsequently, the petitioner produced a community certificate issued to him by the Deputy Tahsildar, Mettur dated 10.12.1965. The said certificate was issued to him after due enquiries. After the lapse of 1 1/2 years from the date of his appointment, the petitioner was asked to produce a new community certificate in the year 1975, from the compete...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd., Dharma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1133; 2000(2)CTC272
ORDERJudgement pronounced by A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. These Appeals have been filed against the common judgment in M.C.O.P.Nos.805 of 1989, 806 of 1989, 807 of 1989 and 808 of 1989 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge, North Arcot Ambedkar District Vellore. Hence, all these Appeals can be disposed of by the common judgment: 2. C.M.A.No.1425 of 1995 has been filed against the order in M.C.O.P.No.808 of 1989. The claimants in the said petition are the widow of the deceased Shanmugham and their children. 3. C.M.A.No.1426 of 1995 has been filed against the order in M.C.O.P.No.805 of 1989. The claimant in the said petition is none else than the wife of the deceased Shanmugham. Her claim for compensation is in respect of the injuries sustained by her in the accident. 4. C.M.A.No.1427 of 1995 has been filed against the order in M.C.O.P.No.806 of 1989, wherein the owner of the vehicle, viz., an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TDI 3939 claimed compensation for...
Tag this Judgment!K. Subbiah Nadar Vs. R. Nandakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC682
ORDER1. Tenant who is the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.1815 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Controller, XIV Small Causes Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. Application filed by the petitioner was one to restore the amenities under Section 17 of the Rent Control Act. Along with the application, the petitioner also took M. P. No. 441 of 1998 for interim restoration of the amenities. It is the case of the landlord that the said interim order was not communicated to him. On receipt of summons in R.C.O.P., the landlord entered appearance on 29.10.1998 and thereafter he found that interim direction has already been given by Rent Controller for restoration of amenities. The landlord therefore filed a petition to vacate the interim orders on 2.11.1998 and the said application is pending consideration. It was posted on 13.11.1998 and it was found on that date that the petitioner had filed M.P.No.616 of 1998 before the trial court for restoration of the amenity at his own costs and the sai...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Fast Cool Services by Partners and 2 Others Vs. P. Shanthakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC257; (2000)1MLJ506
ORDER1. Tenant in RCOP No.143 of 1995 on the file of Rent Controller/XIV Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner.2. Eviction petition was filed by landlord under section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Controller) Act alleging that the scheduled building is required for immediate demolition and reconstruction. Tenant filed counter stating that the claim is not bona fide.3. On 22.2.1996, the case was posted for evidence on which date PW1 was examined and petitioner's witness was called absent and consequently he was declared ex parte and an order of eviction was also passed. Tenant moved an application to set aside the ex parte order with an application to condone delay of 267 days as per M.P.No.780 of 1996. In the affidavit in support of the application tenant said that they along with other members of family went to their native village where they met with an accident on 20.2.1996 and consequently they could not appear in court when the case was called. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›