Chennai Court January 2009 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.
S. Desan and P. Dinakaraj Vs. the Management of South India Surgical C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ420
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in both revisions.2. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the learned District Munsif, Alandur under erroneous impression that the suit filed by the plaintiff, challenging the order of transfer by the defendant, will come under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the remedy open to the plaintiff is to approach the Industrial Tribunal and not a Civil Court has rejected his plaints.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on a decision reported in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant : (1995)IILLJ728SC would contend that an order of transfer will not come under the definition of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act since the plaintiff has not challenged any order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or...
The Management of Hardy Exploration and Production India Inc. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ553Mad
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. All these writ appeals have been preferred by the Management of Hardy Exploration and Production India Inc., Chennai against the common order dated 18.11.2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in different writ petitions. They are being heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The contesting respondents of each case, viz., the second respondent in the respective writ appeals, who are employees under the appellant-Management, filed petitions under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai contending that they are entitled to receive Rs. 60/- per hour as their overtime wages on the basis of their consolidated salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The said claim was resisted by the appellant-Management on the ground that their basic salary is only Rs. 2,500/- per month and adding House Rent Allowance and other allowances, they received Rs. 5,000/- per month; thus, the Ma...
Kaliaperumal and Jayabal Vs. Kandasamy Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)1MLJ514
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 396 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet, who succeeded before the Trial Court but lost before the First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 132 of 1997 where-under the learned Additional District Judge, Villupuram, reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The suit has been filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for a consequential permanent injunction.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Krishna Pillai and from him one Ponnammal, W/o. Manicka Padayachi purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1939; Ponnammal died intestate on 02.10.1942 leaving behind her only daughter-Alamelu Ammal, who inherited the suit property and while she was in possession and enjoyment, sold the property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 07.04.1980; from the date of purcha...
JaIn Housing and Constructions Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ225
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.1. The appellant is the applicant in O.A. No. 807 of 2008 filed by him under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (In short 'Arbitration Act'). Originally an order of interim injunction was granted on 29.7.2008 in O.A. No. 807 of 2008 by this Court in favour of the appellant. The first respondent herein filed an application in A. No. 3810 of 2008, the second respondent herein filed an application in A. No. 3811 of 2008 for vacating the interim order. This Court vide a common order dated 19.8.2008 had vacated the interim order granted in O.A. No. 807 of 2008 and aggrieved by the same, the applicant therein, had preferred this appeal.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:For the sake of convenience, the array of parties as referred to in O.A. No. 807 of 2008 is adopted here also.In the affidavit filed in support of O.A. No. 807 of 2008, the applicant averred that the first respondent had obtained power of atto...
Joseph Nadar, Vs. Victor Suvisesha Muthu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1095
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 47 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikundam are the appellants before this Court.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 47 of 1986 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.4. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 47 of 1986 is that the suit schedule properties belong to Mary Anaballah Luther Jesudasan who is in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia. The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the power of attorney agent of the above said Mary Anaballah Luther Jesudasan and on that basis, he has been cultivating the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff also registered his name as Cultivating Tenant in the Government records under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record and Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act X o...
Rds Project Ltd. Vs. Mariyu Abdul Azeez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad101
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Animadverting upon the order dated 4-9-2007 made in I.A. No. 9434 of 2007 in O.S. No. 4928 of 2005 and the docket order dated 26-4-2007 made in O.S. No. 4928 of 2005 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. These civil revision petitions are focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Niggard and bereft of details, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these civil revision petitions would run thus:The respondent filed the suit O.S. No. 4928 of 2005 before the learned Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of money in connection with the supply of goods to the revision petitioner/defendant herein. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W. 1 by name B. Mohammeed Sameer filed Chief Examination affidavit; whereupon the defendant/revision petitioner objected for the said witness being examined, on the ground that the said witness had nothing to do with the case and he cannot be treated a...
M. Muruganandam Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ421
K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 07.04.2004 in W.P. No. 13911/1998 in and by which, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant, challenging the order passed by the first respondent in respect of the appointment of the fourth respondent as Headmistress of the third respondent School.Factual matrix:2. The appellant joined the service of Singaram Pillai High School, Villivakam, Chennai, as B.T. Assistant in the year 1964. The said Institution was subsequently bifurcated into two schools viz., Singaram Pillai Boys High School and Singaram Pillai Girls High School and after the introduction of Higher Secondary System, both the schools were upgraded as Higher Secondary Schools. Since the very same Management was running two higher secondary schools and a primary school, they have been given corporate status as per G.O.Ms. No. 836, Education Department, dated 27.06.1984. As per the said Government Order, all the sc...
Pattammal (Deceased) and Muthukumarasamy Vs. Arulmighu Sarntharaikatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ328
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 345 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Sirkali who succeeded in the suit, but since the decree obtained by him was reversed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai by his judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 70 of 1998 and being aggrieved by that has preferred the above Second Appeal.2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is set out below:The suit properties which are nanja lands were purchased by the plaintiff from the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 07.07.1976. Pursuant to the said sale, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit properties and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 16 years to the knowledge of all including the defendants. Thus the title of the suit property has vested on the plaintiff both under sale deed as well as by uninterrupted possession. While so the plaint...
Janab Haji K.B. Nawabjan, Vs. S.S. Constructions Rep. by Its Proprietr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1071
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Animadverting upon the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the learned I Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A. No. 13368 of 2008 in O.S. No. 4447 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. The facts giving rise to filing of this revision as stood exposited from the records could pithily and precisely, tersely and briefly be set out thus:The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 4447 of 2007 seeking the following reliefs:a) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the plaintiff, towards the damage for the breach of contract as well as towards the compensation for the mental agony and harassment meted out by the plaintiff, at the hands of the defendants;b) directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.4. The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, whereupon the trial commenced. It appears during the pendency of the trial, with the permission of the Co...
The Ambur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Represented by the Special Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR834]; (2009)IIILLJ128Mad; (2009)5MLJ387
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.1. As all these appeals have been preferred by Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited against the common order dated 1.8.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 12503 to 12505 of 1995, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The third respondent-Commissioner of Sugar, by his order dated 10.5.1995, directed the Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills to withdraw with immediate effect, the scheme regarding encashment of unavailed casual leave by the workers of Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills. The same was challenged by Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills National Workers Union, and the Writ Petitions having been decided in their favour, all these appeals have been preferred by Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.3. Learned single Judge having noticed that the appellant- Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills provided the benefit of encashment of casual leave to its workers, by circular dated 3.4.1967, and was paid to them ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »