Chennai Court August 2004 Judgments
K.S. Chakkaravarthy Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd., Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ322
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Additional charge Memorandum Rc.E4/1802/98 dated 10.8.98 of the respondent herein and quash the same.2. Heard the learned counsel for both.3. This writ petition has been filed to quash the Additional Charges framed by the respondent against the petitioner. Petitioner was working in the Civil Supplies Corporation, the respondent herein and he was suspended from service on 17.3.1998 contemplating enquiry into certain grave irregularities. The petitioner gave his explanation denying the charges. The enquiry officer after holding the enquiry found the charges as not proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the same. But the disciplinary authority has required the petitioner's further explanation. The petitioner gave his further explanation on 12.5.1998 requesting the disciplinary authority to accept the findings of the enquiry officer a...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Ananthanarayanan Vs. S. Vaidy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC424; (2004)3MLJ646
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The appellant as plaintiff had filed the suit O.S. No. 1676/97 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court at Madras, for partition and separate possession of his 1/6th share in the suit property, praying for a preliminary decree. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Late K.M. Subramaniam had purchased the suit property, under a registered sale deed dated 11.1.1950. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, his father was enjoying the same, being in possession, till he died intestate, in the year 1977.3. The first defendant (since deceased) is the wife of K.M. Subramaniam i.e. the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 10. The averments made in the plaint would suggest, that the daughters of K.M. Subramaniam are not entitled to any share in the suit property, since they were already married before 1970, settled with their respective husbands. Thus, in a way, the plaintiff claiming that the suit property belong...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raju, Lnk No. 834270035, Cisf Unit, Chennai Port Trust Vs. the Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ150
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent dated 19.10.1996 in his order No. V-15014/ESTT-I/96/KR/9771 and quash the same and to direct respondent to regularise the period of suspension of the petitioner and to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in CISF as Constable in the Year 1983 and he was posted as L/NK and transferred to Chennai Port Trust on 26.2.1996. On 31.7.1978 he was issued with a Memo under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules on the allegation that he was charged with gross indiscipline, misconduct and neglect of duty. He submitted his written statement on 6.8.1996 denying the allegations levelled against him. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer has filed his report stating that the charge levelled against the petitioner has partly proved. On receipt of the Enquiry re...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gnanaprakasam Vs. the Director Personnel,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC647; (2004)4MLJ294
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order of dismissal. The writ petitioner herein was employed in Neyveli Lignite Corporation and for his misconduct charges were framed, which are as follows:- (i) He contracted the second marriage, when his first wife was alive. (ii) He referred his second wife as his first wife and availed family planning incentives and other medical benefits. (iii) He also availed special casual leave, for which he was not entitled to.(iv) He also availed leave travel concession/assistance for his second wife in the name of first wife.Departmental enquiry was conducted and findings were given, and a second show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner. After getting the explanation, disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of dismissal from service. Against that, he filed an appeal and the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority and hence he was dismissed from service. Challengi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. K. Ramachandra Naidu Telugu Minorities Educational and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ200
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In Writ Petition No.35544 of 2003, the petitioner- institution seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to grant provisional affiliation to start five year B.Sc.,(Nursing course) in the petitioner college for the Academic Year 2003-2004 pursuant to their applications dated 29.9.2000 and 21.1.2002. 2. The following facts are not in dispute. The petitioner institution obtained approval from the State Government on 21.8.2000 to start the Nursing Course. On 29.9.2000, the petitioner applied for affiliation from the respondent University. On 12.10.2000, certain particulars were called for, which were complied with by the petitioner institution on 17.2.2001. An inspection committee was constituted on 21.6.2001. Inspection was conducted on 27.7.2001. Certain defects were pointed out by the University by its letter dated 24.8.2001, which according to the petitioner were complied with by 4.9.2001. The University registered the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by Its Chairman V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ152
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The present writ petitions have been filed by the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu in Home Department and the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board against the common order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in a batch of Original Applications filed by the present contesting respondents and many others. Under the said impugned order, the Tribunal has issued a direction to the present petitioners to issue orders of appointment, subject to verification of the antecedents of the candidates.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are as follows :-For convenience, the writ petitioners are referred to as 'the Government' and the applicants who had filed the Original Applications before the Tribunal seeking employment are referred to as 'the candidates'.The Government issued Notification dated 15.3.1998 inviting applications for filling up 5,032 vacancies to the post of Women Police Constable Se...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Construction Co. Limited Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR41(Madras); 2004(4)CTC401; (2004)4MLJ260
N. Kannadasan, J. 1. The appellant in OSA No. 201 of 1998 was awarded a contract by the first respondent and the contract agreement provides a period of 36 months to complete the work from the date of handing over the site. The ranks of the parties are given as set out in OSA No. 201 of 1998 for convenience. Even though the site was handed over to the appellant/contractor on 1.6.1979, the work was not completed within the stipulated period. It is contended by the appellant that they could not complete the work due to the default on the part of the first respondent and due to the delay on the part of the first respondent on several counts, the appellant suffered a huge loss. 2. In view of the delay on the part of the first respondent, the appellant was constrained to seek extension of time to complete the contract and the period was extended from time to time. Under the said circumstances, the appellant has invoked the arbitration clause. The Arbitrators, after considering the various r...
Tag this Judgment!United Solvent Extractions Private Limited Vs. the Tamilnadu Civil Sup ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ65
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant before the trial Court is the appellant.2. The respondent/plaintiff's case in brief:(a) The plaintiff/respondent had called for sealed tenders, for the disposal of bran, for the quarter ending 1.10.1980 to 31.12.1980, in which the appellant/defendant had participated, by offering their estimate. The offer made by the defendant being the highest, for cone polished raw rice bran as well as for cone polished boiled rice bran at Rs. 1186.70 and Rs. 1567.40 per metric ton, respectively, was accepted by the plaintiff Corporation, as per the proceedings dated 28.1.1981. Thereafter, the acceptance was intimated to the defendant, requesting them to execute an agreement, as well as to furnish security deposit of Rs. 10,000/-. Despite the fact the defendant had participated in the tender, had made offer, which was accepted by the plaintiff, they failed to act as per the terms of the tender, resulting re-tender on 2.1.1981. Due to fluctuation in pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Rameeja Vs. the State, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC438
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This petition has been filed as against the order of the learned Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Madurai, passed in Crl. M.P. No: 1647 of 2004 in C.C. No: 1233 of 2003.2. The contentions of the petitioner are as follows:-The petitioner, is A-2 in C.C. No. 1233 of 2003, on the file of the Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Madurai, which is a case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act. On 10.10.2003 along with the charge sheet a memo was also filed by the respondent on the same day under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., for further investigation. The petitioner's bail petition filed before the said court was dismissed on 9.9.2003. Thereafter the petitioner along with A-1, filed a bail petition before this court. When counter statement was filed on behalf of the respondent before this Court, there was no whisper about the fur...
Tag this Judgment!State Transport Employees Union Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. Metro Transp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ704Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The petitioner, State Transport Employees Union pray for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 14.03.2001 of the respondent, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to restore the seniority of the workmen whose names are given in the typed set from the date of their original appointment with all the consequential benefits.2. The petitioner is a Registered Union under Trade Unions Act. The respondent Corporation while recruiting the Drivers on regular basis follow various procedures. Eligible candidates are called from Employment Exchanges. Subsequently, they will be called for interview. After holding the interview/test, the candidates will be selected, subject to their satisfying the requirements and qualifications for being appointed as regular Drivers. After selection, the respondent will collect deposit amount including training fee. The selected candidates will then be sent for training for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »