Chennai Court September 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.
J. Anandharaj Vs. the District Collector and the Commissioner, Virdhun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR290]; (2007)1MLJ445
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition petition seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 14.7.2005 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service with back salary.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner was working as a Noon Meal Organizer at C.S.I. Primary School at Innam Reddiapatti in Virdhunagar Panchayat Union since 1983 and on 18.3.2004 a criminal case was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sulakarai Police Station in crime No. 61 of 2004. The allegation is that the petitioner threw a stone on his sister's daughter and caused simple injuries on her stomach and head. Registration of the said case was intimated to the Headmaster of the School, pursuant to which the second respondent suspended the petitioner on 19.3.2004, till the pendency of the ...
Krishna and Co. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: (2007)9VST525(Mad)
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. Petitioner challenges the assessment order dated July 4, 2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was a request to grant time to produce the purchase list. However, the assessment order has been passed levying tax and penalty without an opportunity as above. Further, the petitioner relied on the clarification issued on November 17, 1999 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which according to the petitioner has not been followed. Therefore, the order of assessment dated July 4, 2006 is challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader, who would refer the paragraph 9 of the impugned order, in which it is specifically stated that a notice was issued and served on the dealer calling for objections. It is also stated that the dealer has filed the objections on June 1, 2006. The said objections were considered by the authority and an order of assessment has been passed on merits. He further submitt...
P. Kalaiarasi and M. Malarvizhi Vs. the Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj Uni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1804
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Regularisation of service in public employment, Directorate of Madurai Kamaraj University as Data Entry Operators arise for consideration in these writ petitions.2. In consideration of the necessity of appointing Computer Operators for the Computer Centre in the Directorate of Distance Education and for computerisation of the Directorate of Distance Education (DDE), the Syndicate of the University at its meeting has approved the engagement of Computer Operators on temporary basis. On the recommendation of the Syndicate Committee and with the approval of the Vice Chancellor, 10 Data Entry Operators, including the Petitioners were appointed, on consolidated pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month. After conducting an Entrance Test and interview and also following the roaster system, the Petitioners and other Computer Operators were engaged in three spells of time from 21.06.1999 to 10.09.99 (82 days), 15.09.99 to 10.12.99 (87 days) and 16.12.99 to 29.02.2000 (76 days).3. The...
D. Amaladoss Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC141; (2006)4MLJ1360
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. Challenge is to the order in G.O.(2D) No. 208 Home (Courts I-A) Department, dated 29-09-1999 passed by the first respondent, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service in respect of certain charges alleged against him, which have been held to be proved in the enquiry.2. Facts, in brief, as culled out from the pleadings on record, are:The petitioner was a Judicial Officer in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. A complaint was made to the High Court by one R. Muthusamy against the petitioner alleging corruption and misconduct. The complaint was received by the Vigilance Cell of the Madras High Court on 2-12-1991.The Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri issued an office memorandum, dated 12-5-1992, calling for the remarks of the petitioner in respect of certain allegations made against him in the transfer petition (Crl. M.P. No. 1286 of 1992) seeking transfer of the criminal case in C.C. No. 152 of 1991, which was pending before the petitioner, to some other ...
E. Ramasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its Chairman and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1080
ORDER OF THE BOARD)Olney AronChief Engineer (Personnel)6. It appears that earlier there was a provision that if the applicant is a minor, he had to make an application after attaining majority and the fresh application after attaining majority would be considered based on the Rules of the Board applicable on that day. By Circular dated 06.04.2002 in 040574/G8/G82/2002-1 the above provision was deleted, and as per the amended G.O the outer limit for filing application for employment on compassionate grounds is three years from the date of death of the employee.7. In State of Harayana and Ors. v. Rani Devi and Anr. : AIR1996SC2445 , the Supreme Court while examining the object of compassionate appointment pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependant on the deceased-employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such cla...
Bharath Primary School Run by Sri Bathrakaliamman Trust Rep. by Its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1125
K. Chandru, J.1. The appellant is a primary School governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (for short, 'School Rules'). In this writ appeal, they have challenged the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.4.2004 made in W.P. No. 14834 of 2000 wherein and by which, they were directed to pay the salary of the first respondent for the period between 23.9.1998 and 07.6.2000, during which time the writ petitioner had acted as Head Master of the appellant School.2. The first respondent herein was appointed as Head Master of the appellant School consequent to the retirement of one M. Sundaraj, who was the then Head Master. As it was regular vacancy, the appellant School committee considered the name of the first respondent and by a resolution dated 23.9.1998, he was appointed as Head Master. When proposals were sent to the second respondent Department for the purpose of approval, the second respondent passed an order dated 07.6.2000...
R. Venkataraman Vs. S. Sethuraman,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1594
V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The appellant whose selection to the post of Headmaster was set aside by the learned Judge, has filed the above appeal.2. The case has a chequered history, whose factual details are as follows:(a) The post of Headmaster in the 4th respondent school, fell vacant on 1-6-1991 due to the retirement of the incumbent, but the same could not be filled up immediately for various reasons. However, on 23-7-1992, applications were invited by the 4th respondent from willing candidates for consideration for promotion to the post of Headmaster and the claims of 8 persons including that of the appellant and the 1st respondent herein were considered by the School Committee.(b) By a resolution dated 3-8-1992, the School Committee promoted the 1st respondent and he assumed charge of the post on 7-8-1992. He is still continuing to hold the post, though it is not approved by the competent authority till date, due to the long winding litigation, between the parties.(c) Aggrieved b...
B. Suresh Chand Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC805; (2006)4MLJ850; [2006]148STC477(Mad)
K. Mohan Ram, J. 1. The above Letters Patent Appeal No. 100 of 1999 is before us on a reference order dated 19.12.2002 made by a Division Bench consisting of two Learned Judges of this Court. The question referred to the Full Bench for answer is as here-under :What is the extent a bonafide purchaser for value is bound by the charge for payment of arrears of sales Tax created under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.Before the Division Bench, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thudiyalur Assessment Circle, Coimbatore and Anr. v. R.K. Steels reported in : 1998(1)CTC124 , to contend that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser without notice of charge under Section 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore the property purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 25.09.1977 from the ve...
The Management of Blue Dart Aviation Limited Rep. by Its Chief Human R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1138
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The writ petitioner is the Management of Blue Dart Aviation Limited and it undertakes transportation of Cargo by Aviation and it has an establishment in Chennai in their premises of Old Chennai Airport where Cargo is packed, loaded and unloaded for onward transmission and also receive the Cargo and arrange for delivery. It has got an office opposite to the Old Chennai Airport called Indian Airlines Stadium.2. According to the averments made in the affidavit, the petitioner has registered itself as Principal Employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'CLRA Act'). According to them, the third respondent herein is one of the contractors, who also have licence to employ contract labourers. The third respondent have covered their workmen under the Employees' Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance Acts and are having separate workmen. The petitioner further stated in the affidavit that they had employed the workmen supplied ...
K. Kasturi and ors. Vs. C. Mohan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1061
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The defendants, in O.S. No. 197 of 1999 pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District, have filed the above civil revision petition, challenging an order dated 19.7.2004 passed in I.A. No. 490 of 2004, permitting the plaintiffs to file certain documents as additional documents before the commencement of the trial.2. Admittedly, the respondents filed a suit in O.S. No. 197 of 1999 praying a decree of partition of the suit schedule property into two equal halves and for the allotment of one half share to them and for a decree for delivery of possession. The revision petitioners have already filed the written statement and the suit is ripe for trial.3. At that stage, the respondents filed I.A. No. 490 of 2004 seeking permission to file certain documents as additional documents. The said petition was resisted by the petitioners herein, primarily on the ground that there was no pleading with regard to document Nos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »