Chennai Court August 2003 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.
The Nilgiris District Consumers' Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., r ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC166; (2004)ILLJ419Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent connected with Tha.Ka. Thi.Sa.No. 10 of 1994 dated 15.4.1996 and to quash the same.2. The second respondent/employee herein was proceeded with a departmental enquiry on the basis of two charges. The first charge relates to the alleged misappropriation of the amount, stock belonging to the Management causing a loss of Rs. 9,826.77 deficiency of stock and cash deposit of Rs. 1,636.69. Therefore, according to the Management the employee caused a total loss of Rs. 11,463.46. The second charge relates to the petitioner having approached the Labour Court for payment of Subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension. The petitioner was found guilty of the first charge and dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 194...
B.S. Jayalakshmi and ors. Vs. B.S. Sairam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC153; I(2004)DMC270
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the decretal order made in I.A.No. 538 of 2002 in O.P.No. 723 of 2001 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai.2. The first petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent, has filed a petition for alimony before the said Court, under Section 18(1) & (2) (b) & (g) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It is stated that the marriage between the duo was solemnized on 23.2.1987 at Salem as per the Hindu rites and customs. Subsequent to the marriage, in- the wake of some misunderstanding, the first petitioner has filed the above petition in O.P.No. 723 of 2001 claiming maintenance from the respondent.3. After appearance, the respondent filed a counter denying the entire allegations levelled by the first petitioner. When the said petition is pending for trial before the said Court, the first petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.538 of 2002 claiming interim maintenance which was contest...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›