Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)IIILLJ151Mad
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records dated May 13, 2002 and made in I.D. No. 505/1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem, the second respondent herein and quash the same.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is as follows:The first respondent herein was appointed as Driver on October 25, 1990 in the erstwhile Anna Transport Corporation, later on April 23, 1993, he was transferred to the petitioner corporation. A charge memo dated November 2, 2004 for the alleged misconduct that on October 8,1994 at about 2.00 pm the petitioner has abused the Conductor, posted in the Time Keeping office as well as the Assistant Branch Manager in filthy language, besides that he attempted to assault the Conductor in his rest-room thereby he has brought disrepute to the corporation, for which the first respondent has given his explanation on April 13, 1995. An enquiry officer was appointed, who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)25VST667(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petitions are filed by the assessee seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Designated Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), first respondent in each of the case, i.e., Rc.C3.17051/2002, Rc.C3/16705/2002, Rc.C3.15687/2002 and Re.C3.14326/2002 respectively dated December 15, 2003 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act and further direct the first respondent to issue the certificate of settlement in form IV as per Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002.2. As the facts are one and the same in all the writ petitions, the writ petition in W.P. No. 6946 of 2004 is taken up as a typical case for discussion and the material facts, which are required to be stated are as follows.3. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and an assessee on the file of the second...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ676
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, Acting C.J.1. These petitions have been preferred by the State Bank of India (for short, 'the SBI'), the Indian Bank (for short, 'the IB'), the Central Bank of India (for short, 'the Central Bank') and the other Banks, challenging the interim order, dated 5.3.2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the DRAT'), Chennai in I.A. No. 165 of 2008 in M.A. No. 35 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the DRAT directed that out of Rs. 180 crores lying with the IB, a sum of Rs. 8 crores be disbursed to the Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited (for short, 'SPIC') until further orders, pending disposal of the appeal, to meet the urgent needs of SPIC towards electrical consumption charges, salary of the employees, provident fund, payment of superannuation amount, gratuity amount, tax and duties and minimum plant maintenance charges.2. Since the issue involved is common, these cases are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The main...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ1081
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitioner in both the cases is one and the same viz., Tiruppur Lorry Urimayalargal Sangam. While W.P. No. 30560 of 2007 challenges the order of the third respondent dated 16.6.2007 under which the third respondent has demanded an amount of Rs. 97,72,637/- from the petitioner towards arrears of lease/rental amount and for direction to the respondents to renew the lease in respect of landed property to an extent of 125 x 160 = 20,000 sq. ft. situated in Thottipalayam village, Tiruppur belonging to the third respondent, W.P. No. 37095 of 2007 is for direction against the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Coimbatore and the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Coimbatore to implement and rework the arrears of rent as per G.O.(Ms.) No. 456, TDRE & I (RE.4-2) Department dated 9.11.2007.2. Originally both the writ petitions were dismissed as withdraw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ391
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.1. The appellants are the official respondents in writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by each of the respondent in these writ appeals, challenging the demand of additional stamp duty on the document of sale executed by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited (in short ' Corporation') a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking, in favour of the writ petitioners and consequential refusal to release the respective sale deeds to the writ petitioners, already registered by the Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurance, on account of non payment of additional stamp duty.2. The Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking which has been formed to provide houses, police stations and office for police personnel. Each of the writ petitioner was allotted a flat by the Corporation. The respective writ petitioner had executed lease-cum-sale agreement in the year 1985 and also paid instalments in full. Thereafter, sale deed was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1243; (2009)2MLJ482
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioner, who has been detained as 'Immoral Traffic Offender' under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, praying to quash the detention order and set him at liberty.2. It is alleged that the petitioner, under the guise of getting good employment in the export company for good salary, brought poor and innocent girls from Andhra Pradesh with his associates and by keeping them in a locked house, induced and forced them to indulge in prostitution business and also took out a house for rent and is living on the earnings of prostitution.3. Against the detenu/petitioner besides the ground case, an adverse case has also been reported. Both the adverse case and the ground case are registered for the offences punishable under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1247
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the order of detention, dated 25.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Police/detaining authority, Chennai City, who is the second respondent herein. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu, who was detained as 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.2. As per the impugned order, there are four adverse cases registered against the detenu. The first case in Crime.No.545 of 2006 on the file of the N.1 Royapuram Police Station which was registered under Section 399 IPC, on the alleged occurrence that had taken place on 06.04.2006. The second case in Crime No. 28 of 2007 on the file of N.4 Fishing Harbour Police Station which was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC. The third adverse case in Crime No. 320 of 2007 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 302 IPC r/w 149, 109 and 120(b) IPC on the file of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)IILLJ645Mad
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. W.A. No. 1670 of 1999 has been preferred against the order, dated 26.02.1999 passed in W.P. No. 4065 of 1994 by the learned single Judge. The first respondent/petitioner herein had filed the writ petition, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to I.D. No. 53 of 1989 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.2. W.A. No. 1671 of 1999 is filed by the appellant herein against the order passed in W.P. No. 17037 of 1991 dated 26.02.1999 by the learned single Judge and the writ petition had been filed by the Management of Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. The writ petition had been filed challenging the order passed in Petition No. 85 of 1988 in I.D. No. 62 of 1982 on the file of the second respondent, by way of issuing a writ of certiorari calling for the records and quash the same.3. It is an admitted fact that I.D. No. 53 of 1989 was filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 28.08.1986, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)2MLJ278
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1.This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 27.02.2004, made in Proceeding No. 27645/ADW II/2003 and quash the same.2. The writ petitioner herein was the appellant before the Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, the first respondent herein. It is seen that the community certificate issued by the Thasildar, Polur Taluk vide No. 1363595, dated 01.09.1998, stating that she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community of Scheduled Caste, was cancelled by the District Level Vigilance Committee, Tirvannamalai. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, Chennai, constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein. As per the order dated 27.02.2004, in proceeding No. 27645/ADW II/03, the Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee, held th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)IIILLJ605Mad
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. The writ appeal has been preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order, dated 31.03.1997 made in W.P. No. 8487 of 1988 by the learned single Judge, confirming the order, dated 09.05.1988 passed by the second respondent in I.D. No. 52 of 1986.2. The appellant herein had filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 8487 of 1988, challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Chennai, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order, dated 09.05.1988 made by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 52 of 1986 and quash the same and also to direct the first respondent/management to reinstate 18 employees of the petitioner union with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.3. It is not in dispute that the management of the Vibromech Engineering Private Limited, the first respondent herein, had raised an Industrial Dispute in Ref No. 52 of 1986 against 18 named employees, under...
Tag this Judgment!