Chennai Court August 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.
G. Vijayan Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ1331
P. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 13.07.2007 passed in W.P. No. 10200 of 1998.2. The appellant was working as a Conductor in the second respondent Transport Corporation and he was absent from duty during 25.10.1995 to 31.10.1995; 07.11.1995 to 09.11.1995; 12.11.1995 to 16.11.1995; and 19.11.1995 to 22.11.1995. Since he used to be frequently absent, the second respondent Transport Corporation has decided to take disciplinary action and issued a charge memo on 28.11.1995. The explanation submitted by the appellant was not satisfactory, therefore, disciplinary proceedings was initiated, Enquiry Officer was appointed and at the conclusion of the domestic enquiry, report was submitted that the charges stand proved. The second respondent Transport Corporation has decided to impose major punishment, and therefore, second show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 07.04.1996, proposing dismissal from service. After receiv...
Marimuthuammal @ Marimuthu and Vs. R.P.P. Construction (P) Ltd. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2788
R. Banumathi, J.1. Aggrieved against the award of interest from the date of application and not from the date on which the compensation amount 'fell due', the parents of deceased workman Ramesh have filed this appeal.2. Factual background in nutshell are as follows : Respondents 1 and 2 entered into contract with respondents 3 and 4 to construct a building at SIPCOT premises situated at Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District. The deceased Ramesh was employed under respondents 1 and 2. Second appellant, father of the deceased Ramesh, had also worked as watchman with the respondents 1 and 2 for about one year prior to the accident. On 12.01.1999, while Ramesh was at work at SIPCOT premises, he met with an accident while loading cement bags and barrels in a tractor. In the said accident, Ramesh sustained internal injuries and he died on his way to hospital. A case was registered in Cr.No.9/1999. Respondents 1 and 2 had taken insurance policy for the said work with respondents 5 and 6. As the ...
K. Krishnan Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Admi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ737
ORDERA. Kulasekaran1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Rc. K1/12524/2005 dated 01.06.2005 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against law and restore the order of the second and third respondents dated 20.07.2000 in Mu. Mu.(A2) 1138/20002. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The lands comprised in Survey No. 657/4A3 to an extent of 10 acres situate in 129, Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District was originally classified as a Government Poromboke - Kazhuveli which was in possession and enjoyment of one Ramamoorthy, Son of Thangavel. The petitioner has purchased the said property on 27.11.1970 from the said Ramamoorthy and ever since the said date, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the third respondent also issued 'B' memo in his name; that considering the uninterrupted possession of the petitioner for more ...
Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Sh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC54
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The complainant in STC No. 1378/95 and C.C. Nos. 1410, 1414, 1421, 1424, 1425,1426 and 1427 of 1995 on the 1'ile of the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Coimbatore, is the appellant in all the above appeals. The complainant has preferred the private complaint in all the above cases under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.2. Admittedly in the business transaction in connection with cotton bales a sum of Rs. 26,99,995/- is due from the respondents in STC No. 1378/95 and C.C. Nos. 1414 and 1421/95 and the respondents in C.C. Nos. 1410, 1424 to 1427 of 1995 owes a sum of Rs. 29,18,241/- to the complainant.3. On appearance of the accused, the learned trial Judge has furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and when the charges were framed and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. P.W. 1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P.7 were marked on the side of the complainant i...
V. Sridhar Vs. the Forest Range Officer, Odugathur Range and the Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC177
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Writ petition is for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the Tata Sumo (Spacio) car, bearing Regn. No. AP-03/G-4567 (Engine No. 497 SP 26 GZZ 750120 - Chassis No. 421055 GZZ 916177) belonging to the petitioner, which was stolen on 17/18.03.2007 night between 01.00 A.M., and 05.30 A.M., at Chittoor, Andra Pradesh and the same was later on seized on 23.03.2007 (with implanted Regn. No. TN-09-L-7707) by the Forest Range Officer, Odugathur Range, in connection with S.T.O.R. No. 79/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Vellore.2. The petitioner has submitted that he is the owner of the Tata Sumo (Spacio) car, bearing Regn. No. AP-03/G-4567 (Engine No. 497 SP 26 GZZ 750120 - Chassis No. 421055 GZZ 916177). The said vehicle was properly registered with the competent Registering Authority, Chittoor, Andra Pradesh and insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chittoor Branch and the policy is in force till 09.08.2007. While so, when t...
Pioneer Agro Industry Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST404(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner-Industry is engaged in manufacture and sales of Coconut Shell Powder and registered as a Dealer under the provisions of the Tamil nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax, 1956.2. The petitioner has further submitted that the products of the petitioner, namely, Coconut Shell Powder was classified in Entry No. 70 of Part B of Schedule 1 of the Tamil nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 from 1.4.1994 to 16.7.1996 and Coconut Shell Powder is nothing but a crushed form of coconut shell chips and the said Entry talks about Coconut shell and its chips. Subsequently, the Coconut shell and its chips were included under Entry No. 75 of Part B of Schedule III with effect from 5.3.1997. With effect from 27.3.2003 the Coconut shell and its chips were brought under Entry No. 45(ii) of Schedule III and they are taxable. In the clarifications issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coconut Shell and its chips were exempted and that they may not...
Saasikumar Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC786
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in S.C. No. 546 of 1999 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.2. The short facts of the case of the prosecution sans irrelevant particulars are, that the marriage between the first accused and the deceased Sujatha took place on 08.09.1995 and at the time of marriage, the deceased Sujatha was presented with 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents and after her marriage, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Sujatha was subjected to dowry harassment and she was insisted to bring Rs. one lakh more towards dowry and due to the unbearable cruelty and harassment met at the hands of the accused/appellant, the victim had took an extreme step of committing suicide by hanging on 13.07.1997 at 15.30 hours and hence the accused have been charged under Sections 498A and 304(B) IPC and under Section 4 and 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Taking cognizance of the case, lea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›