Chennai Court December 2004 Judgments
Dr. M. Sathiyapriya Vs. the Secretary to Government, Health and Family ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ378
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The issue involved in the above batch of writ appeals is as to the validity of Clause 23 of the Prospectus issued by the State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein in respect of admission of service candidates to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Medicine Course for the Academic year 2004-2005.2. These writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 2151 of 2004 etc. dated 27.4.2004.3. All the writ appellants are Doctors, who have passed M.B.B.S. Examination and who are in-service candidates, who have been appointed in various Primary Health Centres in 2001. The relevant rule prevailing at the time of their appointment was that they can seek admission to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Medicine Course only after completion of their two years service in Government Primary Health Centres.4. The State Government earmarked 50% of seats in admission for servi...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Vallalar Gurukulam Higher Secondary School Vs. District ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC7; [2005(107)FLR315]; (2005)1MLJ488
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 19.4.2000.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The writ petitioner was a teacher in Vallalar Gurukulam Higher Secondary School, Vadalur. He was implicated in a criminal case and suspended on account of that criminal case. However, admittedly, no departmental proceeding was instituted against him nor any departmental charge memo served on him. The only proceeding against him was the criminal case.4. Subsequently he has been acquitted in the criminal case. He filed the writ petition alleging that he could not be kept under suspension for more than four months. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition but has stated that so long as the petitioner is kept under suspension, he has to be paid full salary and the school should review the suspension order. Aggrieved, the Management of the school has filed this writ appeal.5. When a misconduct is commit...
Tag this Judgment!Vengaivasal Village Panchayat by Its President Vs. the State of Tamiln ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad226
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The core question of law that arises in the above appeal, as projected by Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the appellant, is 'whether the action of the Government, first respondent, in passing the impugned government order, viz., G.O.(Grade) No. 239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997, by exercising the power conferred under Board Standing Order 21, reclassifying the public road, which power vests with the appellant/village panchayat (local body) whose vested right, power and jurisdiction are well defined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1944, ignoring the concept of Panchayat Raj enabling them to function as institutions of self-government under Article 243G of the Constitution of India, is valid?'2.The appellant in the appeal is the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 18208 of 1997 filed for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(Grade) No. 239, Revenue Department, dated 27.2.1997...
Tag this Judgment!Walajah Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC571
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed against the award of the Labour Court.2. The second respondent was working as a Peon in the petitioner society. While so, from 24.7.1990 till February, 1991, he abstained voluntarily from attending duties. Even on earlier occasions, he abstained without prior permission. Action was taken against him and a warning was also given to him. Since he absented for more than seven months, he was terminated from service. The said termination was challenged by him before the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed the award, setting aside the termination order, and directed the reinstatement of the second respondent with back wages and all other attendant benefits. The said award is now challenged in this Writ Petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran brought to the notice of this Court the Rule 149 (10) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, which reads that 'any employee absenting without any leave ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Selvarani Vs. the Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC81; 2005(2)CTLJ11(Mad); (2005)1MLJ394
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 9.8.2004 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein.2. The respondent-Municipality conducted a public auction on 19.3.2004 in respect of the right to collect the rent from the road-side vendors for the period 2004-05. In the said public auction, second respondent herein was the highest bidder, but due to the intervention of General Elections, the bid was not confirmed in his favour. The appellant, who was the licence-holder for the earlier period, viz. 2003-04, was allowed to continue till May 2004 on payment of proportionate lease amount. The appellant, after the auction process was over on 19.3.2004, wrote a letter to the Municipality expressing her willingness to offer Rs. 6,000 more than the amount offered by the second respondent. When the respondent-Municipality intended to hold a fresh auction, the second respondent herein, who was the highest...
Tag this Judgment!State by Inspector of Police, Cbi/Acb Vs. S. Sankaran and K.V. Ravipra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1474
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the State against the order dated 14.11.2003 made in Crl.M.P. No. 381 of 2003 by the Court of Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Chennai.2. The case of the petitioner is that a charge sheet was filed against the respondents/accused for offences under Section 120B r/w 409, 477A IPC and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that the respondents while working as Catering Superintendents in VLR, Central Station, Chennai had entered into a criminal conspiracy during May, 1993 and in pursuance thereof, had misappropriated or otherwise converted for their own use the provisions of stock of Southern Railway, which were entrusted to them or were under their domination, to the tune of Rs. 1,11,808.05.3. The further case of the petitioner is that so far the prosecution has examined its witnesses; that the prosecution then filed a petition under Section 311...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its M.D. Vs. Presiding Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ38Mad; (2005)1MLJ346
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The issue that arises for our consideration in the above writ appeal is:'When an application is made by the employer for approving the order of termination by the authority before whom industrial dispute is pending, can such authority go into the questions of victimisation and irregularities imputed on the employee while passing appropriate orders on the application, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as The Act') and what would be the consequence of the orders passed by such authority either by approving or refusing to approve the order of termination made by the employer?'2. The appellant/employer (hereinafter referred to as 'employer') has made a challenge in W.P. No. 16133 of 1994 to the order of Industrial Tribunal dated July 28, 1993 made in Approval Petition No. 24 of 1991 declining to grant approval for termination of the employment of the second respondent/ workman (hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!Dunlop Factory Employees Union Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: II(2006)BC146; [2005]125CompCas820(Mad); [2006]69SCL42(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petitioner is the workers' union which seeks for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the sixth respondent is null and void. The first respondent-company went into financial difficulties and therefore, a reference was made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' in short) for framing a scheme. Originally, the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) was appointed as the operating agency and thereafter, it was replaced by the State Bank of India. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioners also took part. It was decided that it was necessary to sell some of the immovable properties belonging to the first respondent in order to facilitate rehabilitation. The first respondent owns properties all over India. The manner in which such sale should take place was also laid down. As against the order of the BIFR, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Fin...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC666
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 8.10.1991 passed in W.P. Nos. 3693 of 1986 (batch containing 41 matters). The third respondent/writ petitioner in all these writ petitions have challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (appellant/third respondent) under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, to acquire lands for public purposes and issue of Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. In the affidavit of the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner, it was contended that public purposes specified in the acquisition Notifications are vague and do not contain any material particulars with sufficient clarity so as to enable the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner to make effective objections in an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In the first of the above referred to three Notifications involved in the...
Tag this Judgment!intas Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Novaritis A.G., Schwarzwalda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC27
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 28.4.2004 made in O.A.No. 13/2004 and A.No. 1218 of 2004 in C.S.No. 5 of 2004; O.A.No. 14 of 2004 & A.No. 1076 of 2004 in C.S.No. 6 of 2004; O.A.No. 15 of 2004 and A.Nos. 841, 842 and 843 of 2004 in C.S.No. 7 of 2004; O.A.No. 16 of 2004 and A.Nos. 844, 845 and 846 of 2004 in C.S.No. 8 of 2004; and O.A. No. 17 of 2004 and A.Nos. 847, 848 & 849 of 2004 in C.S.No. 9 of 2004 filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs in the respective suits, wherein the learned single Judge made absolute the order of ex parte injunction dated 20.01.2004 made in O.A.Nos. 13 to 17 of 2004 in C.S.No. 5 to 9 of 2004 in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in each of the suits and dismissed the applications filed by the appellants/defendants to vacate the ex parte order of injunction dated 20.1.2004 in each of the suits.2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the above suits, viz., C.S.Nos. 5 to 9 of 2004 against the appellants here...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »