Chennai Court January 2007 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.
P. Selvaraj Vs. the Management of Shardlow India Limited,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)ILLJ1048Mad
K. Chandru, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.10.2006 passed in W.P. No. 79 of 2001 confirming the orders of the second respondent appellate authority and the third respondent Controlling Authority in not granting the difference of amount payable to the petitioner towards the gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [for short, 'Gratuity Act']. 2. The appellant joined the services of the first respondent on 15.11.1996 and after putting in 32 years of service, he reached the age of superannuation on 09.7.1998. On account of his superannuation, in terms of the Gratuity Act, the first respondent employer paid him a sum of Rs. 70,802/- towards gratuity. 3. At the time of superannuation, viz., in July 1998, the appellant's basic wage was Rs. 131.04 and the Dearness Allowance was Rs. 3951/-. The petitioner had worked for a period of nine days during July 1998 but, however, in computing the last drawn wages, the first respon...
N. Balasubramaniam, Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ791
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Deviakurichi Panchayat forms part of the Thalaivasal Panchayat Union. There was a Private Daily Vegetable Market in Deviakurichi Panchayat, located in Survey No. 47/3, which was run under a licence granted by the Panchayat in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. The original licence was in favour of three persons and was granted on 17.2.1999 and the licence was renewed from time to time till 31.3.2005. The said Private Market was discontinued thereafter.2. After the aforesaid Private Market was discontinued, a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 known as 'Tamizhaga Vivasayeegal Sangam', filed an application to run a Private Daily Vegetable Market in Survey Nos. 37/8B, 39/9, 39/10 and 39/11 in Deviakurichi Panchayat. By a resolution dated 25.2.2005, the Deviakurichi Panchayat granted licence to the said Association for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006. However, the said licence was cancel...
V. Somasundaram, Vs. the Secretary to Government Revenue Department,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ750
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6975 of 2000 dated 27.11.2001 in and by which the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978, initiated against the appellants were upheld.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows,(a) The third respondent, who owns two acres of dry land in S.F. No. 130/21 at Piratiyur village, Srirangam Taluk, converted the said land into house plots and sold the same. The first appellant purchased a plot measuring 5.51 cents as per document No. 4235/1991 dated 11.9.1991. The second appellant, who is the wife of the first appellant, purchased two plots one measuring 5.55 cents and another 4.79 cents from the third respondent as per the document Nos. 4310/94 and 768/95. The first appellant's cousin sister, the third appellant herein also purchased one plot measuring 5.51 cents under document No. 573/1993. All the fo...
C. Damodarasamy Vs. Government of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Minist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ1153
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P. No. 9866 of 1999 dated 9.1.2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein seeking regular pension or compassionate allowance under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows.(a) Appellant was appointed as Development Officer in the second respondent Corporation in the year 1962 and prior to his appointment, the appellant worked as Insurance Agent from 1958. The work of the Development Officers will be assessed in terms of certain set of norms to be followed in their performance assessment reports.(b) On 22.4.1976, the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Amendment Regulations, 1976, was issued and as per Regulation 5, if a Development Officer failed to bring in eligible premium equal to five times of his annual remuneration in three preceding years, the appointing authority may ...
K. Balswami Vs. Director of Pension and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC494; (2007)3MLJ385
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent in any by which the claim of medical reimbursement made by the petitioner was returned stating that the 'The Surgery/Treatment undergone is not found in the list of specialised surgery/treatment of the references cited.'2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was diagnosed on having Type 2 Diabetes mellitus and II degree moblitz Type 2 AV Block and he was advised to take Permanent Pacemaker Implantation. The petitioner underwent the said Implantation on 18.09.2004 in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai and in that regard the petitioner incurred an expenditure of Rs. 96,630.15/-.3. As per G.O.Ms. No. 562 Finance (Pension) Department dated 11.07.95 the petitioner will be entitled for reimbursement to get a sum of Rs. 50,000/- or 75% of the actual cost of treatment whichever is less under the Tamil Nadu Government Pensioners Health Fund Scheme. In view of the same,...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC305; 2008ACJ1258
P. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Krishnagiri, dated 30.01.2002 made in MCOP No. 693 of 2001, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division II) Ltd., Dharmapuri-5, has filed the above appeal.3. Even at the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that they are mainly aggrieved only with regard to quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal and in such circumstance, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the findings relating to the negligence.4. In respect of the death of one Nirmala in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.02.2001, her husband, two minor children, her parents as well as her sister filed the claim petition praying for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The first claimant, who is the husband of the decease...
Kamala, Vs. Ramachandran and Nandakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)1MLJ863
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. As against the order passed in I.A. No. 6 of 2005 filed by the defendants 1 and 2 directing the Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit property as per the decree of the High Court dated 4.7.2002 made in A.S.No:1300 of 1998, the plaintiffs have preferred this revision.2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:(a) One Balakrishnapillai had three sons namely 1) Ramachandran, 2) Nandakumar and 3) Sambandam. They jointly purchased the property situate din R.S. No. 385/2, Easaniya Thope Street, Sirkazhi Town on 6.10.1973 under a registered sale deed, and each of them being entitled to 1/3rd share. (b). Subsequently Sambandam died on 25.8.1983 leaving behind his mother Mangayarkarasi, wife Kamala, daughter Rajalakshmi and son Dr. B. Shanmugham and according to the plaintiffs he had executed a Will on 7.4.1983 settling 1/3rd share of the suit properties to the son, the third plaintiff in the suit. But according to the defendants the said Sambandam died intestate ...
Krishnamoorthy Vs. Parasuraman,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC538
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The second plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner, which is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. The revision arises from the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condoning the delay of 95 days in filing a petition to restore the suit dismissed on 17.08.2000. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the first plaintiff being a mortgager in a mortgage deed executed by him in favour of the first defendant Parasuraman, has filed the suit for redemption in the District Munsif Court, Tirukovilur against the defendants 1 to 6 in O.S. No. 430 of 1982 and after the trial, the trial court has passed a preliminary decree on 11.04.1984. The appeal filed against the said preliminary decree by the second and third defendants in A.S. No. 144 of 1984, was also dismissed on 04.08.1986. It was there after, the first plaintiff filed I.A. No. 668 of 1988 in O.S....
M. Selvam Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Chief Postmaster Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ453
ORDERP.K. Mishra, J.1. Heard Mr. Balan Haridas for the petitioner, Mrs.Narmada Sampath, Audi. Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs. Jothivani for Respondent No. 3.2. The question in these writ petitions relate to selection of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster. A notification was issued for such post on 25.8.1995. The present petitioner as well as the present Respondent No. 3 were candidates in addition to several other candidates. There is no dispute that the present Respondent No. 3 belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Initially the present petitioner was selected and was allowed to join. At that stage, the present Respondent No. 3 filed O.A. No. 95 of 1996 challenging her non-selection and the selection of the present petitioner. The Tribunal, at that stage, came to the conclusion that the present Respondent No. 3 had been illegally excluded on the basis of the pressure put by the local villagers and not according to the Rules and directed the D...
Southern Roadways Ltd. Vs. E.S.i. Corporation, Rep. by Its Regional Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: II(2007)ACC76; 2007(5)CTC263; [2007(115)FLR946]; (2007)ILLJ922Mad
K. Venkataraman, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the order of the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in ESIOP No. 15 of 1994 dated 8.12.2000. 2. The appellant herein has filed ESIOP No. 15/94 on the file of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The said ESIOP has been filed by the appellant praying for a decree and judgment:(a) that the subsistence allowance paid to suspended employees are not wages as defined under Section 2(22) of the E.S.I. Act and further the trainees/apprentices are not employees within the meaning of the Act and claim for contribution as per letter dated 15.7.1993 is totally against law. (b) that the trainees would not come under the purview of the E.S.I. Act and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the amount as claimed in the notice. (c) to declare that the claim is totally untenable. (...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »