Chennai Court October 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.
M. Kanagasabapathy Vs. the Special Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ270; 2007(5)CTC392
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 13.8.2003 passed in W.P.No. 10291 of 2003.2. The issue relates to payment of subsistence allowance payable to the appellant for the period of suspension pending disciplinary action.3. The appellant was placed under suspension by the first respondent on 25.1.1999 pending disciplinary action against him. Alleging non payment of subsistence allowance, the appellant preferred PSA No. 2/02 and 3/02 claiming subsistence allowance for two different periods. By order, dated 12.7.2002, the third respondent ordered a sum of Rs. 12122/- in PSA.No. 2/02 and Rs. 53276/- in PSA No. 3/02 to be payable by the first respondent to the appellant. Both the appellant and the first respondent preferred PAA Case No. 5/02-1 and 5/02 before the second respondent. The second respondent also confirmed the order of the third respondent by his order, dated 24.2.2003.4. Aggrieved against the same, the first ...
Amudha Rani, Vs. K. Veeraraghavan Alias K.V. Raghavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad64; (2008)1MLJ610
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.6.2000 in C.S. No. 363 of 1995.2. The plaintiffs are the appellants.3. One Kandaswamy Naicker, who died in the year 1955, had three sons, namely, Murugesan, Venkatachalam and K. Veeraraghavan (Defendant No. 1). One Meenakshi Ammal was the wife of Veeraraghavan. Three daughters of Meenakshi Ammal and Veeraraghavan are the plaintiffs and the four sons are the defendants 2 to 5 respectively. After the death of Kandaswamy Naicker there was a partition, wherein Murugesan separated himself and the other two brothers continued jointly. On 17.7.1971, the first defendant executed a release deed (Ex.B-3) in favour of his wife Meenakshi Ammal as well as all the children, including the plaintiffs, releasing his share in the joint family properties. Subsequently, under Ex. B-2 dated 27.12.1971, there was a partition between Venkatachalam and the family members of Veeraraghavan. The property described in 'B' schedule of suc...
V. Ramakrishnan Vs. the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ1060Mad
P.K. Misra, J.1. Both these writ appeals, first one by workman and the other one by the management of M/s. Sundaram Motors, a private limited company, are directed against the common order passed in W.P. Nos. 14608/2006 and 16417 of 2006, dated 27.09.2006 and they were heard together and therefore dealt with by this common judgment.2. The facts in brief are as follows:The appellant in W.A. No. 1419/2006, hereinafter referred to as 'the workman', was working under M/s. Sundaram Motors, hereinafter referred to as 'the management'. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the workman and the charge memo dated 11.10.1989 was served on him. In such charge memo, it was indicated that some employees of the Bangalore Branch have organised and conducted Service Campaign and indulged in anti-company activities. It is further stated that the delinquent workman had also participated and he was ...found instigating and inciting other workmen/persons in the group, and had taken active part in...
Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. and Five Ors. Vs. Asstt. Provident Fund Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)ILLJ806Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the contribution for leave encashment expenditure is covered within the definition of basic wages under Section 2(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'PF Act').2. Section 2(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 reads as follows:2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (Sub-sections (a) and (aa) are omitted)(b) 'basic wages' means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in either case in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment and which are paid or payable in cash to him, but does not include-(i) the cash value of any food concession;(ii) any dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments by whatever name called paid to an employee on account of a rise in the cost of living), house-...
L. Bakthavatsalam and ors. Vs. R. Alagiriswamy (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC513; (2007)6MLJ128
P. Jyothimani, J.1. Nearly 93 items of properties which include immovable properties situated in Uppilipalayam Village, Kalapatti Village, Singanallur Village, Vellakinaru Village and Kurudampalayam Village, all at Coimbatore District, originally belonged to one R. Venkitusamy Naidu, who died leaving behind him, 2 sons viz., R.V. Lakshmiah Naidu and R.V. Rangasamy Naidu and 5 daughters, viz., Ranganayakiammal, Thayammal, Krishnammal, Nagammal and Ammaniammal.2. R.V. Rangasamy Naidu died on 01.06.1955, leaving behind him, his wife Krishnammal without any other legal heirs. His wife Mrs. Krishnammal also died on 30.04.1977.3. The other son of R.Venkitusamy Naidu, viz., R.V. Lakshmiah Naidu also died on 05.04.1958, leaving behind him his 4 sons, viz., L. Bakthavatsalu, L. Venkatapathy, L. Jagannathan and L. Ramasamy, out of whom, the first three are the defendants 4 to 6 in O.S. No. 89 of 1983 and plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 649 of 1985.4. One of the sons of R.V. Lakshmiah Naidu, viz., ...
S. Sujatha W/O. Ramesh Vs. the Education Officer, Corporation of Chenn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ858
P.K. Misra, J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 15274/2002 filed by the present appellant. Such a writ petition was filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated 02.08.2001 in proceedings No. Ka.Thu.Na.Ka. No. B11/ 5488/2001 and for issuing a direction to the respondent to employee the appellant on compassionate ground.2. The appellant was adopted by one S. Pattammal. The factum of such adoption was recited in the registered Will dated 11.11.1989. The aforesaid S. Pattammal was working as a teacher in Ekangipuram Corporation Middle School. After death of the aforesaid employee, the probate of the Will was obtained and on the basis of such probate, subsequently the terminal benefits for the deceased employee were made available. The appellant had also filed an application for employment on compassionate ground. It appears that such application was rejected on 14.04.1997. Subsequently the appellant file...
A. Saravanan Vs. the Executive Engineer Cum Administrative Officer, Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC340; (2007)6MLJ1562
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were allotted houses in the Navalpattu Housing Scheme Phase-III, Trichy on various dates ranging from 14.10.1991 to 15.05.1998, by the Executive Engineer cum Administrative Officer, Trichy Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The said scheme was part of a larger scheme promoted in three different phases by the Housing Board and there were three categories of houses namely, High Income Group (HIG), Middle Income Group (MIG) and Low Income Group (LIG), which were promoted in the said scheme. Even among those three categories, there were different types of houses, depending upon the size of the plot and the total constructed area of the building. Since these details are not relevant for the determination of the issue on hand, I do not propose to advert to them.2. Some of the allotments which were originally under hire purchase agreements, later got converted into out-right purchases. In any case, most of the peti...
P. Subramaniyan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Chairman, Ord ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC408
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order, dated 31.10.2006 made in O.A. No. 161 of 2006 by the fifth respondent herein, whereby setting aside the order dated 20.12.2005 of the respondents 1 and 2 and also directed them to refix the seniority of the fourth respondent above the petitioner and the third respondent herein.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was appointed as Chargeman Gr.II (T) on 08.08.2000, under Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) along with the fourth respondent, though, he was already appointed as Chargeman Grade II Technical (CM Gr.II (T)) with effect from 12.04.2000 under Direct Recruitment quota. The third respondent was appointed as Chargeman Gr.II (T) under LDCE quota with effect from 09.08.2000, on the ground that the fourth respondent had not given his willingness for the LDCE quota. However, the petitioner and the third respondent were placed seniors above the fourth respondent s...
R. Rathakrishnan Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC369; (2007)6MLJ455
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. These writ petitions were preferred by employees of Co-operative Societies against their respective show cause notice issued by the Deputy Registrar of the co-operative society asking them to state as to why their services should not be terminated, their appointment being illegal. Instead of submitting reply to the show cause notice, the respective employees have challenged the show cause notice on the ground that their appointments are not suffering from any illegality and the show cause notice is contrary to law.2. The show cause notices were issued pursuant to judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in L. Justine v. The Registrar of Coop. Societies, Chennai reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385, wherein at paragraph 19 (v), the following order was passed:19. ...(v) direct that within two months of the approval of the special bye-laws under Sub-rule (1) of the Rule 149 of the Rules, the respective Deputy Registrars of Co-operative Societies having jurisdic...
Ravi and Gurunathapillai Vs. Ramar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC36
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. These Civil Revisions are referred to the Division Bench to consider the scope of the provisions contained in Order XVIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'. This provision was introduced by way of amendment in 1976. This matter has been referred to the Division Bench not only because of certain conflicting decisions of single Judges of Madras High Court but also because of importance of the question.2. Order XVIII Rule 3-A CPC is extracted hereunder:Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.3. One line of thinking as expressed in some of the decisions is to the effect that a party should be examined as a witness before examination of his other witnesses and if the party wishes to appear as a witness at a later stage, after examination of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »