Chennai Court September 2005 Judgments
N.S. Rajan, Vs. the Management of Indian Bank, Rep. by Its Chairman an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ178Mad; (2005)4MLJ449
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in WP No. 44153 of 2002 is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 07th July, 2001 in Ref: PENSION/98/7073 in so far as he has deducted the qualifying period of service of the petitioner from 27 years and 215 days to 26 years and the order dated 11th October, 2002 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to calculate the pension and commutation accordingly and pay to the petitioner with arrears together with interest at 12% p.a. for delayed payment.2. W.P. No. 44157 of 2002 has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 23rd April, 2001 in Ref: PENSION/98/15331 in so far as he has deducted the qualifying period of service of the petitioner from 23 years and 6 days to 22 years and the order dated 11th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shankar S/O. M. Kannappa Naicker Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC406; 2006ACJ902; 2005(5)CTC433
P.K. Misra, J 1. The question in controversy relates to the extent of liability of the Insurance Company. Appeal has been preferred by the owner. There is a delay of about 900 days in filing the appeal. Notice has been served on the respondent/Insurance Company as well as the claimant/respondent.2. At the time when the petition for condonation of delay was listed, we had made it clear to the counsels appearing for all the parties that they should advance arguments not only on the question of delay but also on merit of the appeal itself. Accordingly, the learned counsels have been heard on the question of condonation of delay as well as on merit of the appeal. It is therefore necessary to first consider the question of condonation of delay and, if delay is condoned, the appeal itself would be disposed of on merits. However, if the delay is not condoned, it may not be necessary to deal with the questions raised in the appeal.3. In the petition for condonation of delay, the appellant has ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sevanthinatha Pandarasannathi Vs. Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC81; (2006)1MLJ134
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In W.P. No. 13122 of 1994, the petitioner, claiming to be the hereditary trustee of Devanarayanaswamy Devasthanam, seeks for a declaration that the Amendment Act 30 of 1994 amending the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 as ultra vires the Constitution.2. In W.P. No. 13046 of 1998, one Chinnasamy had sought for a Mandamus to direct the respondents/Union Government of India and the State Government to detain and deport the seventh respondent (writ petitioner in W.P. No. 13122 of 1994) to Srilanka.3. For convenience of description, the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 13122 of 1994 is described as the petitioner.4. W.P. No. 13122 of 1994:Though the background of the dispute relates to a long history of the establishment of Devanarayanaswamy Devasthanam, the claim of the petitioner to the post of Managing Trustee and the counter claim by other persons and long disputes over the same, this Court need not go into all the said issues in v...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. Rep. by Its M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ313Mad; (2005)4MLJ253
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 19.3.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.303 of 1999.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in this appeal.3. The facts in detail have been given in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence, we are not repeating the same except where it is necessary. The respondent-workman was charged on the allegation that he has made a false claim towards transport travelling allowance. The enquiry officer found the respondent guilty, but the Labour Court held that there was violation of natural justice as he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Moreover, the Labour Court has also found on merits that the charges have not been established.4. After the amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act in 1971 by inserting Section 11A it is well settled that the Labour Court can sit as a court of appeal and can reverse findings of fact re...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi and anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank, Rep. by Its Branch Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ173
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The question in the present application relates to refund of Court-fees in the appeal, which was amicably settled between the parties before the Lok Adalat.2. O.S.A. No. 179 of 2004 was referred to Lok Adalat on 7.12.2004. After the disposal of the appeal in the above manner, the appellant filed C.M.P. No. 21215 of 2004 for refund of the Court fees of Rs. 15,300 paid on the memorandum of the grounds of the Original Side Appeal. When the matter came earlier, by order dated 17.1.2005, the Court passed an order:'This matter may be listed before 'Lok Adalat' for passing necessary orders regarding refund of Court Fee'.On 27.1.2005, the Lok Adaklat observed:'Since the matter has already been settled before the Adalat, they are entitled to refund of Court fees under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The Appellants/petitioners are directed to produce this order to the Registrar and get refund of the Court fees'.3. Thereafter, the Registry has raised object...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jacob, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ136
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issues in these writ petitions are inter-linked, they are being disposed of by the following Common Order.2. Direct recruit Assistants in Madras City Revenue Establishment have preferred O.A. No. 204/91 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104 praying for a direction to the Government-Revenue Department, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration and the Collector of Madras to consider and promote them to the cadre of Deputy Tahsildars from the date on which they completed five years of service as direct recruit Assistants and placing them above 1983 panel of Deputy Tahsildars and giving them service benefits.3. The applicants in O.A. No. 5710/1992 on the file of the same Tribunal, who joined in Revenue Department as Junior Assistants and were later promoted as Assistants, have prayed for quashing G.O. Ms. No. 884, Revenue Department, dated 12th August, 1992 ('Government Order of 1992' in short) and the conse...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Electricity Workers Federation (Recognised) Regd. No. 2 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ288
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by two different Associations/Union of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, praying for a certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings in (FB)No. 1 (Admn.Branch) dated 28.01.1997 and to quash the same.2. The petitioners are challenging the order of the respondent as mentioned above which deals with compassionate appointment. In terms of the order, if a dependant or ward of the deceased employee seeks for compassionate appointment and they are qualified in any professional degree course/other non-professional degree courses or diploma course and possessing first class, they would be considered for appointment in the respective post to which they are qualified and if such persons do not have first class, they can be appointed only as Helper(Trainee) or office Helper. According to the petitioners, the said order is arbitrary and contrary to the regulations.3. The crux of the objection of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!K. Thirupathi Vs. District Magistrate and District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4389
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. These batch of Habeas Corpus Petitions came before this Bench by way of Reference by a Division Bench of this Court dated 11.8.2005. The order of Reference is as follows:'(a) In preventive detention cases, one of the essential requirements as recognised in a series of rulings is that in the event of the detenu being already in custody as a remand prisoner, the detaining authority should record his satisfaction in a proper manner that there was a possibility of the detenu filing a petition for bail and likelihood of coming out on bail. This has been repeatedly emphasized in several judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. But in many of the recent cases, an important issue which had arisen for consideration is as to whether it is necessary that the word 'imminent' should be used in the context of the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.(b). Learned Additional Public Prosecutor refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rivadeneyta Ricardo...
Tag this Judgment!Mss Wakf Board College, Rep. by Its Secretary and Correspondence and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ262
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issues raised in these writ appeals are inter connected, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.2. Aggrieved by the common order, dated 22.12.2004, made in W.P. (MD) Nos. 1007, 1411 and 1461 of 2004, of the learned Single Judge issuing certain directions for receipt of annual subscription and admission of the writ petitioners as members of General Body and also to furnish the list of members of M.S.S. Wakf Board College, Madurai, to all the writ petitioners, MSS Wakf Board College, Madurai, through its Secretary and Correspondent, has filed Writ Appeals 6 to 8 of 2005.3. Against the dismissal of W.P. (MD) No. 6243 of 2005, dated 20.7.2005, by another learned Single Judge, at the admission stage, filed for quashing the communication of Chairperson, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, dated 5.7,2005, appointing Mrs. I. Nazneen as Secretary and Correspondent of MSS Wakf Board College, Madurai, the writ petitioner therein, namely, Musthak Shaw Sah...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraj Vs. the State, Represented by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3724
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Nagaraj, the appellant herein, has been convicted for the offence under Section 301 read with 302 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/= in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. Challenging the same, he has filed this Appeal.2. The brief facts, leading to the conviction of the appellant, are as follows:'(a) P.W.1 Soundararajan, had contested the election for the post of President of the Oorkudi village Panchayat, as an independent candidate. On 14.10.2001, P.W.2 Arumugam, P.W.3 Anbazhagan, the deceased Vedayan and others were canvassing in support of P.W.1 Soundararajan.(b) At about 7.00 p.m., when P.W.1, the deceased and others were canvassing in the village, the accused, who belong to the Left Community Party, came in front of the witnesses and the deceased and heckled the deceased as to why he had to canvass for a candidate, who is going to be defeated in the election. Then, a wo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »