Chennai Court October 2004 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.
State, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.B.C.i.D. Vs. K.V. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC598
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is an application filed by one Mr. Martin, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SB CID, Headquarters, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. No. 3713 of 2001 seeking for modification of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 19352 of 1998 directing for registration and investigation by the D.S.P., CB CID, Nagapattinam, instead of the D.S.P., SB CID, Nagapattinam.2. This case has got a chequered history. Before considering the issue raised in this matter, let us look into the chronological events:'(a) K.V. Rajendran, working as a Senior Lecturer in Physics Department in Presidency College, Chennai, filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 19352 of 1998 to direct the respondents-police officials to register an F.I.R. based on the complaint dated 2.9.1998 given by him against one Karunakaran, the then Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'R.D.O.'), Mayiladuthurai and other officials for having abducted and tortured the said Rajendran and o...
A. Shanthi Vs. the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marke ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ568
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the first one in W.P.Nos.126 of 2003 praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the selection made by the respondents 1 and 2 as displayed on the notice board of the office of the third respondent for selection of LPG Distributorship for Velur, Namakkal District pursuant to the interview held on 29.10.2003 as null and void being against the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India in No.P-39012/1/1999-IOC dated 9.10.2000 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the selection of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship at Velur (Namakkal District) under PH-W category.2. W.P.No.9818 of 2004 has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings vide Notice Board of the third respondent in the Ref.No.NIL dated 29.10.2003 and quash the same insofar a...
C. Venkatasubbu Vs. K.N. Solairajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC87
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above Contempt Petition under Section 10 read with 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for deliberately violating the terms and conditions of the undertaking in the joint memo executed by the respondent, filed in Writ Petition No. 14517 of 2003 and recorded on 20.5.3003 by this Court and disobeying the said order, thereby committing contempt of Court. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above petition, it is stated that the respondent herein submitted 3 applications with 3 industrial programmes to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, to quarry granite in S.Nos. 406/5 (present Survey No. 297/5) of Keelavalavu Village, 94/2 and 167/1 of Thiruchunai Village for grant of lease of 10 Hec., in each of the survey numbers. Since the petitioner was a retired Tahsildar and guiding the respondent, the respondent appointed him as a Power Agent on 12.2.1997 and the same was registered on 27.2.1997. I...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Pondicher ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC566; (2005)IILLJ775Mad
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The Union Territory of Pondichery is the petitioner before us. The challenge is to the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 11.10.2001 in O.A.Nos. 591 of 2000 and 851 of 2000.2. In O.A.No. 591 of 2001, the first respondent challenged the order of the Revising Authority dated 21.3.2000. The Revising Authority set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 2.9.1999 exonerating the first respondent of the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 17.5.1993.3. In O.A.No. 851 of 2000, the first respondent sought for a direction for being promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector from 26.12.1994, that was the date on which, his juniors were promoted.4. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the Revising Authority dated 21.3.2000, directed the petitioner to consider the case of the first respondent for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector in accordance with law from the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›