Chennai Court January 2008 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.
The Management of Injipara Estate Vs. Thyilammal W/O. Late Arjunan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1103
R. Banumathi, J.1. Aggrieved by the Order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour awarding compensation of Rs. 1,05,377/- to the Respondent/Claimant for the death of her husband Arjunan, the Management has preferred this Appeal.2. The Respondent's husband Arjunan, a Worker bearing Roll No. 4407 of N.C.Division of Injiparai Estate, Valparai, was employed by the Applicant-Management. The case of the Respondent/Claimant is that her husband Arjunan along with others were sleeping at the residential quarters allotted by the Management of Injiparai Estate. In the midnight between 29.12.1998 and 30.12.1998 the back door was loudly knocked and when the back door was opened, he saw few wild Elephants standing there. The deceased Arjunan had loudly called others and at that time, the Elephant got wild and are said to have thrown a water pot with water and attacked the deceased Arjunan. The deceased Arjunan is said to have sustained injuries on his forehead and he fell down and he became unconscious. Wh...
Salem Textiles Limited 'B' unit rep. by Its General Manager (Tech), Mr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ844
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Earlier writ petitions filed questioning the levy of electricity tax imposed under Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 1991 as well as Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 were dismissed, against which appeals were filed and the same were also dismissed by the Division Bench on 13.07.2006. It was, against the said dismissal order, civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has partially allowed the appeals by common order dated 15.05.2007 as reported in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and E.T.I.O. 2007 (3) CTC 273 (SC).2. The Supreme Court has set aside the impugned common order in so far it relates to demand charges, holding that in respect of demand charges no electricity tax is leviable. Based on the judgement of the Supreme Court, the petitioners have made representations and in spite of the same, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has raised electricity bill, levying electricity tax ...
K. Saktheeananth Vs. the Secretary to Government, Law Department, Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ930
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Law (B.L.) final year studying in Dr.Ambedkar Law College, Chennai. According to the petitioner, as a representative of the students, for the purpose of raising certain issues with the University authorities, viz., 3rd respondent, it needs a student forum to be established by way of election among the students, but the 3rd respondent has stopped conducting election among the students for the past 15 years, whereas other Arts and Science Colleges run by the Government are conducting elections. The failure to conduct election among the students results in the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. In spite of many representations to the 3rd respondent in these years, the 3rd respondent has not conducted the election. 2. The Supreme Court while dealing with a case from the Kerala High Court wherein the High Court has allowed the educational ins...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›