Chennai Court October 2006 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.
Coimbatore District Powerloom Cloth Dealers' Association, rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ304Mad
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the rights of the members of the petitioner Association to fix the charges payable for the weaving done on job works by power loom owners or in any manner compelling them to enter into any settlement/arrangements for the purpose of fixing uniform charges for the weaving job work as they are individual contracts, entered into between the members of the petitioner association and the respective powerloom owners.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.3. The facts and circumstances leading to the above writ petitions and the prayers being similar in nature, a common order is passed in all these writ petitions.4. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners, are as follows:It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner associations that they are registered as...
K. Kandasamy Vs. Deputy Inspector-general of Police, Tiruchirappalli R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1382
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 7.11.1994, primarily accusing him of insubordination and abusing his superior Officer and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.3.1995. An enquiry followed and the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 28.3.1995 in his minute in PR No. 297/94 holding the charge proved.2. After furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and receiving further representation of the petitioner, the second respondent herein passed final orders on 26.5.1995, imposing the penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect.3. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty, the petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent on 7.7.1995. The said appeal was rejected by the first respondent by an order dated 29.9.1995. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1520 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Adminis...
Kasthuri Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR797]; (2007)IILLJ956Mad
D. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order, claiming damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground of violation of the very provision of Section 14-B.Mr. Krishnan, learned Counsel appealing for the petitioner has submitted that though the impugned order was dated September 2, 2004, it was signed by the authority only on September 14, 2004 and thereafter only it was communicated to the petitioner. By the impugned order, the petitioner was given opportunity to appear before the authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund within a period of fifteen days to explain as to the circumstances under which the contributions were not made in time. Even before the expiry of the said period, determination was made on September 20, 2004. The order contravenes the Second. proviso to Section 14-B of the Act. The learned Counsel brought to our notice, th...
Arjunan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1701
1. The appellant, who, in this judgment, will be referred to as the accused, was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, in S.C. No. 208 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC on an allegation that, due to a land dispute, at about 11.30 a.m. on 23-8-99, he caused the death of Santha by stabbing her on her neck, right shoulder, head and left wrist. The learned Sessions Judge, finding the accused guilty under Section 302, IPC, sentenced him to imprisonment for life and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment.2.1 Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the conviction of the accused are as follows:P.W. 1 is the husband of the deceased Santha, P.W. 2 is the son of the deceased and P.W. 4 is the daughter of the deceased. The accused Arjunan is the younger brother of the deceased. P.W. 1's family and the accused were residing at Errapatti. P.W. 1, at the relevant point of...
S.K. Krishnan Vs. Ambal Traders by Partner (P2), M. Arumugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Mad137
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 17.4.2006, passed in I.A. No. 5557/2006 in O.S. No. 8909/1979, on the file of the XIV Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The 2nd defendant is the revision petitioner before this Court. The suit is filed by respondents/plaintiffs for a declaration to declare the plaintiffs' title to the suit property and also to restrain the defendants by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property.3. The respondents/plaintiffs state that the 1st plaintiff Thiru Elliah Reddiar (since deceased) was the absolute owner of an extent of 1 acre 87 cents in Survey No.76, T.S. No. 87, Block No.1, in Ekkattuthangal village, Madras. 97. This property being his ancestral property, the 1st plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the 2nd plaintiff on 27.3.1975 under which the 1st plaintiff agreed to sell the said property to the 2nd plaintiff or his n...
Manivanna Gounder Vs. Pachaiappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC639
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 146 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2005 in A.S. No. 23 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam has filed the above second appeal.2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiff and defendant are brothers. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Govindaraja Gounder on 17.05.1960 and from then on he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. During the life time of their father certain properties were purchased by the joint family and after the death of their father some of the joint family properties were orally partitioned and after partition they are enjoying the same separately. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from the income earned by him by rearing of goats. The p...
The Corporate Manager, Csi Corporate Schools Vs. the State of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ378
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the proceeding of the second respondent/Director of School Education in Na.Ka. No. 30687/D1(2)/04 dated 26.10.2004 insofar as the Schools under the petitioner-management are concerned.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows.(a) Petitioner is a Corporate Manager of the Schools established and administered by the Church of South India, Kanyakumari Diocese, which is a Christian Minority Educational Agency. The Educational Agency has established and is administering several institutions including number of schools. The teachers in the said schools are being appointed based on the sanction of post, following the qualifications prescribed by the Government from time to time.(b) According to the petitioner, there are four categories of teachers in the aided schools apart from Special teachers, Language Teachers, Physical Education Teachers and Vocational In...
Shantharam Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Refor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC477
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. The Petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified to call for the orders of the first Respondent dated 16.11.2000, confirming the Urban Land Tax Assessment, Demand Notice issued by the third Respondent and quash the same.2. For the Fasli year 1391 to 1410, under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax, [for short, 'the Act'], Tax was determined at Rs. 1,68,520/-, payable by the Petitioner in Assessment No. 1338/91 and 1339/91 relating to S. Nos. 1015 and 1016 of Kulavanigarpuram Village, Palayamkottai, Thirunelveli District. Demand of Urban Land Tax was issued under Form 6 Notice, on 25.09.2000, calling upon the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,68,520/-.3. Challenging the Demand Notice, the Petitioner had preferred revision Petition before the first Respondent. Confirming the Demand Notice, the first Respondent has rejected the Revision Petition by the impugned order. However in the impugned order, the Petitioner was advised to take recourse under Section 19(5) of th...
S. Manjunathan, Vs. the Joint Registrar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC552; (2006)4MLJ1538
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by an order of the District Registrar, Ootacamund, confirmed by the Inspector General of Registration and affirmed by the learned Judge in W.P. No. 16405 of 1990, holding an Indenture dated 24.4.1987 as a deed of conveyance chargeable to stamp duty as a conveyance under Article 23 of Schedule I and not as a deed of release chargeable to stamp duty under Article 55 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act.2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are as follows:a) By a deed of conveyance dated 26.4.1985 registered as document No. 997 of 1985, in the Office of the Registrar of Nilgiris at Ootacamund, one B. Shivasubramani describing himself as the Manager and Kartha of a Hindu Joint Family, conveyed 1/4 undivided share in the lands of the extent of about 22.46-5/16 acres together with the buildings thereon, in Ootacamund, Nilgiris District, to and in favour of the appellants herein.b) By a subsequent Indenture dated 24.4.1987...
O.A. Chinna Alagi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR140]; 2007(2)SLJ358(NULL)
ORDERK. Suguna, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Govt. Letter No. 16231/Pearu 2/2004-3 dated 9.7.2004 and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction regular pensionary benefits to the petitioner in terms of the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 29 Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 10.1.1989 from 10.1.1989 with interest.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had worked as a Sanitary worker in the Olagadam Town Panchayat, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District for a period of 21 years from 16.7.1953 to 6.3.1974. Though the petitioner had served for a period of 21 years, he was not paid regular pension. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as far as the employees of local bodies namely, Panchayat Unions, Town Panchayats are concerned, they are not governed by the Pension Rules. Subsequently, in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »