Chennai Court April 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.
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Secretary and the Chairm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ604
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 20.4.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 17827 of 2000.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record.3. The writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) was promoted by order dated 7.6.1996 from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer retrospectively with effect from 9.6.1988. He was further promoted as Superintending Engineer in 1998.4. The short question in this writ appeal is whether the writ petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on 30.6.2000 when the panel for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer was drawn.5. The proviso to Regulation 98(1)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations as amended on 30.6.2000 states:' Provided that only those Superintending Engineers, who have put in not less than 8 (Eight) years of service in Class I Service shall be elig...
Bepari Saleem Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC469; 2005(101)ECC128
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The detenu, by name, Bepari Saleem, challenges the impugned detention order dated 03.09.2004, detaining him under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, ( in short 'COFEPOSA Act'). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 3. Though several points have been raised questioning the impugned detention order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed the following points at the foremost.'(i) The detenu was not supplied with the copy of the remand order dated 02.09.2004, in the language known to him within the prescribed time. The belated supply of the relevant and relied on document vitiates the detention order; and(ii) The retraction letter dated 27.08.2004 was neither considered by the detaining authority, nor the same was placed before the Advisory Board. On this ground also the detention order is liable to be quashed. '4. Coming to the first contention, it is n...
M. Mathiazhagan and V. Vijayakumaran Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ405
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J.1. As against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 955 of 2001, dated 1.1.2002, the first and second respondents as well as the third and fourth respondents in the above said Original Application, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have filed these Writ Petitions in W.Ps. No. 7939 and 5192 of 2002 respectively. 2. Since both the Writ Petitions assailed the same order and issue involved in these petitions are one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, we call the parties as arrayed in W.P. No. 7939 of 2002. 3. The facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions are as follows: a. The first respondent was appointed as Fitter Mechanical Transport (A) (Skilled) (in short FMT(A)(SK)) on 16.8.1989 and has been working in the Second Petitioner Depot. b. The second respondent was appointed as Mechanical Transport Mechanic (A) ...
Naganathan and Ammani Ammal Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC6
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. The appellants are Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2. The first appellant has been convicted for offences under section 498A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/= in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment, under section 302 read with Sec.34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 read with Section 201 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/= in default to under go simple imprisonment for three months. The second appellant has been convicted for offences under section 498(A) IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/= in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment, and for offences under section 302 read with Sec.34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-(a) A-1 is the husband of A.2. One Kathiravan, their younger son, Muniaselvam and Annapuranam, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›