Chennai Court June 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.
K. Loganathan Vs. the Director of Rural Development and the Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ90
K. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 9412 of 1997, seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent, dated Nil/08/97, by which he was imposed with the punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Assistant to that of Junior Assistant with the starting scale of pay on permanent basis. Even at the time of filing of the original application, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and retired from service. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 13344 of 2006.4. The petitioner during the year 1979 was working as a Rural Welfare Officer. He was given a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that he manipulated the records relating to Intensive Manure Scheme (IMS) loan and granted loans in the name of fictitious persons, who were not the actual residents of the village...
T. Singaravel @ Ramachandran, Vs. Sudarsanathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1297
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 are the legal heirs of one Seetharama Naidu. He filed O.P. No. 644 of 1982 for including his name in the Village Adangal in respect of R.S. No. 101/4 of Thennangudi Melantham Village, Thirunallar Commune as 'his own cultivation'. This was treated as a petition under Section 7 of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. In this petition, he stated that he had entered into a sale agreement with one Rathinasamy Naidu of Thillayadi Village, who was the original owner, in the year 1963. Since the owner was in death bed, the sale deed was not executed. He paid the entire sale consideration and thereupon, he was put in possession and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property from 1963 onwards and he was also cultivating the same. But, when his name was removed from the Village Adangal without notice to him, the petition was filed. The Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court, while dealing with this, observed that the Adanga...
S. Selvaraj Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ171
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 31463 of 2006.2. The petitioner had filed O.A. No. 9975 of 1997, challenging an order of the first respondent, dated 21.8.1997 and the connected proceedings of the second respondent, dated 29.10.1997.3. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that he will not be paid wages for the period from 28.06.1991 to 12.01.1995 being the period under which he was kept under suspension. He was told that the fundamental rules will not apply to part time village assistants and therefore, his request for grant of wages was rejected.4. The petitioner was employed as a Thalaiyari in the Keezhathiruvengadanathapuram Village, Palayamkottai Taluk since the year 1958. Subsequently, the post was redesignated as a Village servant and further, renamed as Village Assistant. The post of Village Assistant was governed by the Rules framed under Arti...
D. Shajahan Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ88
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner has filed O.A. No. 8833 of 1997, seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent, dated 27.8.1997. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 30911 of 2006. 2. By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed a punishment of reduction in rank for 3 years from the post of Assistant to that of Junior Assistant. His future increments was also postponed for 3 years, which also will have the effect of affecting his pension. Against the punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent, by statutory appeal, dated 24.9.97. Even before the appeal could be disposed of, the petitioner moved the Tribunal with the original application. The petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order before the Tribunal. 3. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a detailed reply affidavit, dated 17.11.99.4. The petitioner was given a charge memo un...
S. Subramanian Vs. the Additional Director General of Police-cum-commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ175
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner has filed O.A. No. 8219 of 1997, seeking to challenge an order dated 16.09.1997 of the respondent. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 35028 of 2006.2. By the impugned order, dated 16.09.1997, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order. Even at the time of filing of the O.A., the petitioner was 50 years old and he would have reached the age of superannuation during the year 2005. 3. The charge against the petitioner was that when an accused was brought before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, he did not provide adequate bandobust, which resulted in one accused by name Vijayakumar was murdered in the 10th Metropolitan Magistrate Court premises itself and this was due to the neglect o...
Madras Hire Purchase Association Represented by Mr. NitIn Sagan Vs. Un ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Mad)289; (2009)5MLJ1137; [2009]18STJ235(Madras); 2009[16]STR3; (2009)25VST446(Mad)
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in all the above writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos. 14905, 15327, 15328, 15559 and 15560 of 2001 are identical, W.A. No. 4119 of 2003 was filed against the vacation of the interim order passed in WP No. 15328 of 2001, hence, all the writ petitions as well as the writ appeal are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The learned senior Counsel Mr. Aravind P. Datar appearing for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitioners are non banking financial companies engaged in the business of hire purchase and leasing; that 46th Amendment inserted Article 366(29A), of the Constitution of India, in which Clauses a to f, particularly Clauses c & d, which are relevant to this case, explain the ambit of the expressions of tax on the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by instalment and also a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable ...
N. Jayaseelan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ113
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 6603 of 1996, seeking to challenge the letter, dated 4.11.1996 of the second respondent and communicated by the letter of the third respondent, dated 5.11.1996 and for reinstating the petitioner with consequential benefits. Pending the O.A., the Tribunal granted an interim stay of termination on the ground that the petitioner has been working for long a period and there was recommendation for regularizing his service. The said order came to be extended until further orders.2. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed a detailed reply affidavit, dated 28.7.97. On the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 29926 of 2006.3. The petitioner was appointed as an Instructor on an annual contract basis by the Director of Technical Education, Chennai, dated 18.10.90. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, his service was terminated at the end of the acade...
Marimuthu Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3633
C. Nagappan, J.1. Appellant Marimuthu is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 330 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram, and he has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him in the case. For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the appellant will be referred to as accused.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC.3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 and M.Os.1. to 4.4. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from oral and docum...
Management of Tirunelveli Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ845Mad
B. Rajendran, J.1. Originally, the employees in all the writ appeals, (hereinafter referred to as 'the first respondent'), who were employed as daily wages casual labourers with the appellant Management, contended that they have worked continuously for more than 480 days in two years and therefore, they were entitled for the benefits and rights conferred under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. As the representation made by them and their Union were not considered, they approached the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, who in his proceedings in N.E. 12617/95, dated March 4, 1996, had confirmed the permanent status as per the provisions of the Act. The appellant Management has failed to implement the statutory orders. The first respondent filed claim petitions in C.P. Nos. 80, 82, 87, 89 and 102/1996, before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disput...
Madras Hire Purchase Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: [2009]21STT355
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in all the above writ petitions Le., W.P. Nos. 14905, 15327, 15328, 15559 and 15560 of 2001 are identical, W.A. No. 4119 of 2003 was filed against the vacation of the interim order passed in WP No. 15328 of 2001, hence, all the writ petitions as well as the writ appeal are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The learned senior counsel Mr. Aravind P. Datar appearing for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitioners are non-banking financial companies engaged in the business of hire-purchase and leasing; that 46th Amendment inserted Article 366(29A), of the Constitution of India, in which Clauses (a) to (f), particularly Clauses (c) and (d), which are relevant to this case, explain the ambit of the expressions of tax on the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by instalment and also a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »