Chennai Court February 2005 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.
C. Jambunathan S/O. A. Chandrasekaran Vs. the Management of Dheeran Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ1144Mad; (2005)1MLJ621
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 14.08.2003.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and have perused the records. We see no merits in this appeal.3. The appellant was working as a Conductor in the services of the Cheran Transport Corporation from 1981 till February 1991, and thereafter, he was transferred to work under the first respondent herein. The appellant was charged for misappropriating a sum of Rs.12/- by preparing false documents. After enquiry he was found guilty, and was subsequently dismissed from service. He raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court held that the charges framed against the appellant had been proved and even earlier the appellant had committed similar misconducts. However, the Labour Court held that the punishment was disproportionate, as his family members were dependent on him. The Labour Court directed that fresh appointment be given to the appella...
Kone Elevators India Limited Rep. by Its General Manager (P and A) Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ652Mad
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. S. Ravindaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. P.S. Jayakumar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.2. This matter relates to the question of computation for payment of gratuity, as contemplated under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The management had initially calculated and paid the amount for thirty years. Subsequently, an application was filed by the workman, stating that computation should be made for 31 years, as he had put in 31 years of service. During pendency of that application, further amount was paid.3. However, the contention of the workman that calculation should be made by dividing the monthly salary with 22 and not 26 was not accepted by the original authority. Such a contention had been made by the workmen, on the footing that Saturday was also a non-working day and, therefore, the calculation should be done on the basis of actual working days in a month, namely, on an average ...
Chemplast Sanmar Limited (Previously Known as Chemicals and Plastics I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ451Mad; (2005)1MLJ702
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In W.P. No. 5395 of 1996, M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited seeks for quash the common order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, in a batch of Claim Petitions, dated 18.3.1996.2. In W.P. No. 3147 of 1997, another common order of the labour Court dated 6.1.1997 in a further batch of claim petitions is questioned.3. As the issues which arise for consideration are common and identical, they are heard together.4. The pleadings and factual circumstances which led to each of the individuals filing the respective claim petitions before the Labour Court are common. Though the dates of each one of them leaving the services of the Management may vary, such variation does not have any impact on the legal issue which arises for consideration in these two writ petitions. Hence, for convenience, the pleadings in C.P. No. 106 of 1995 filed by one Allimuthu/claimant, are extracted below.5. The claimant has contended that he was employed under the Management in their f...
The Member Secretary, Sports and Development Authority of Tamil Nadu V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ713
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 07.02.2004.2. The appellant has challenged his transfer order. It is well settled that transfer is an exigency of service and hence this Court should not ordinarily interfere with transfer orders. Admittedly, the first respondent in the writ appeal was on a transferable post. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.31183 of 2003 various allegations have been made against the first respondent (the writ petitioner) of deserting his post and not taking any interest in work. In our opinion this does not make the transfer order illegal.3. As regards the allegation of the writ petitioner that he was forced to sign in the relinquishment declaration dated 20.09.2001, this has been denied by the appellant (first respondent in W.P.No.31183 of 2003) and we cannot go into this serious factual controversy. Moreover, the writ petitioner has not stated in what manner he was compelled...
V. Thanaiya Vs. M. Balasamy Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)23; III(2005)BC380; 2005(2)CTC288; 2005(2)KLT643
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 20.12.2004 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur in Crl. M. P. No. 5021 of 2004 in C. C. No. 207/2002, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The petitioner herein is the accused in the Trial Court. The petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Trial Court to adduce evidence on affidavit.3. The learned Magistrate by an Order dated 20.12.2004 dismissed the said application by holding that Proviso (2) of Section 145 does not enable the accused to adduce evidence on affidavit and the said application was filed to protract the proceedings.4. Aggrieved against the said order, the above Criminal Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that Section 145 Proviso (1) enables the complainant to give evide...
Smt. R. Gajalakshmi and ors. Vs. G.T. Venkatasamy Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC692; (2005)1MLJ670
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 5.11.2004. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. We are not stating the facts of the case in great detail because they have been stated in the judgment of the learned single Judge. However, we may indicate the facts in brief.3. The writ petition was filed praying for the issue of a mandamus restraining the first respondent in the writ petition (W.P.No.22332/2002)(appellant herein) from operating her stage carriage service bearing registration No.TN-27-K-9789 on the route Bangalore to Baklipura, so far as it relates to the portion lying in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner also prayed for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent/Secretary, State Transport Authority, Chepauk, Chennai dated 2.5.2002. 4. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.22332 of 2002 is a stage carriage operator in Karnataka, and operating a stage...
Parvathi Vs. Valliyammal and Canara Bank, Basur Branch Rep. by Its Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC210; 2005(1)CTC684; (2005)1MLJ672
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgement dated 2.8.1993, of Sub-Court, Erode in its A.S. No. 79 of 1993 in dismissing the suit which itself was against the decree dated 30.1.1992 passed by the District Munsiff, Erode in O.S. No. 497 of 1985.2. While admitting the second appeal, the following questions of law were framed:' i) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in reversing the judgement and decree of the trial court without holding its findings on facts and evidence on record as wrong; and ii) Whether the lower appellate court is right in presuming that the late Sengoda Gounder would not have intended to grant his share of the account to the plaintiff, while the defendants have not pleaded or shown any other reason for the late Sengoda Gounder to open an account jointly with his daughter who was unmarried at that time and all his other children were married and settled.'3. The suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff, directing the first defen...
The Manager, Silver Cloud Estate Vs. Plantation Labour Association (Ai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ40
Markendey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 27.09.2002. Heard Mr. V. Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the first respondent, though the name of Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel is printed in the list. 2. The writ petition was filed against the second show cause notice dated 19.06.2002 in which it is alleged that the members of the writ petitioner association had committed serious misconduct (assault) and were charge sheeted on 19.04.2002 and they were called upon to submit their explanation against the proposed punishment of dismissal. 3. In our opinion, the writ petition itself was premature, since a writ can be filed only when a cause of action has arisen. In this case no dismissal order was served, but the members of the petitioner-association were only directed to submit explanation for the proposed punishment of dismissal. Hence, no cause of action had arisen when the writ...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secretary to Government of India, Ce ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC84; (2005)2MLJ1
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 22.07.2004 made in O.A.No. 1081 of 2003, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-1, have preferred the above writ petition to quash the said order on various grounds.3. The first respondent herein, namely, Ravindrakumar, an Appraiser in Custom House, Chennai-1, challenged the cancellation of his promotion order dated 13.12.2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal-second respondent herein in O.A.No. 1081 of 2003. The Tribunal, by its order dated 22.7.2004, allowed the said Original Application by quashing the impugned order dated 13.12.2002 and directed the writ petitioners to implement the order No. 206/02 dated 10.12.2002 and also directed them to consider the service of the first respondent herei...
Bass @ Jayabaskaran, S/O. Ganesan Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC277
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The appellant, who is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 468 of 2000 on the file of learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 26.9.2001, convicting him under Section 341 and 302, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 341, IPC and also to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:(a) P.W.1 Lakshmi is the mother of the deceased Chandra and P.W.2 Sasikumar is her brother. The deceased was deserted by her husband and living in the house of her mother P.W.1. The house of accused Bass alias Jayabaskaran is 100 ft. away from the house of P.W.1. There was a vacant sight between these two houses, which was used by the family of P.W.1. This has given rise to frequent quarrels betwee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »