Chennai Court January 2010 Judgments
The Divisional Personnel Officer, Divisional Office (Personnel Branch) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. 'It has been our sad experience to find employers trying to stifle the efforts of employees in their legitimate claims seeking benefits under the Industrial Law by tiring them out in adjudication proceedings raising technical and hyper-technical pleas. Industrial adjudication in bona fide claims have been dragged on by employers for years together on such pleas. It would always be desirable for employers to meet the case of the employees squarely on merits and get them adjudicated quickly. This would help industrial peace. It is too late in the day for this Court to alert the employers that their attempt should be to evolve a contended labour.'(Justice V. Khalid's opinion expressed in H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India : (1985) 4 SCC 201).2. It is sad to note that Indian Railways have come before this Court for the third time to deny payment of gratuity payable to the contesting respondents, who ekked their living on a wage of Rs. 2/- for collecting each cinder b...
Tag this Judgment!Meharunnisha Beevi Vs. Mohammed Jackaria
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
ORDERV. Periya Karuppiah, J.1. This Revision is directed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam in E.A. No. 37/2008 in E.P. No. 48 of 2007 in O.S. No. 115/1999. The petitioner/judgment debtor before the lower court is the petitioner herein and the respondent/decree holder is the respondent in this revision.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision would be as follows:The petitioner who was a judgment debtor in O.S. No. 115/1999 dated 18.10.2004, had preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 6/2005 before the learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, and the said appeal was dismissed by the said court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the lower court and the said suit was originally filed by the respondent as plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement said to have been entered into between the respondent and the petitioner for selling the property belonging to the petitioner for consi...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. The respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant herein. This appeal has been filed by the respondent in the M.C.O.P. No. 100/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Judge, Ariyalur against the award of the said Tribunal dated 24.01.2006 made in the above said MCOP awarding a sum of Rs. 2,48,200/- as compensation to the respondent herein for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that took place on 26.12.2003 at about 12.30 p.m. at Tulukkavelicolony, Chozhapuram on the Kumbakonam-Chennai main road.2. The respondent herein had filed MCOP No. 100/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Judge, Ariyalur contending that he met with an accident, while he was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN-49 N-2612 on the Kumbakonam - Chennai main road keeping his father as a pillion rider, as the bus bearing Regn. No. TN-32 N-0905 belonging to the appellant transport corporation which came in the opposite directio...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Manoharan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
ORDERD. Hariparanthaman, J.1. The Original Application in O.A. No. 8153 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.2. The petitioner passed +2 Examination in April 1993 and thereafter, he got qualified by passing lower and higher grade tests in Typewriting. He applied for the post of Typist in Group IV Service pursuant to advertisement No. 7/93 dated 06.02.1993 of the third respondent. The petitioner participated in the written examination and he was selected. He applied for the post of Typist under the physically handicapped quota. He produced a certificate dated 31.07.1990 issued by the Special Medical Board for the Physically Handicapped, Vellore. It was certified that the petitioner suffered a loss of 70% hearing in both ears. It was also stated that the disability was based on the certificate issued by the Special Medical Board. The petitioner was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and was posted to Tamil Nadu Secretariat S...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Tea Limited, Velonie Estate Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.I. History of indentured Labour:1.1. Tea gardens like other industrial establishments must depend on offering sufficient attractions in order to maintain their labour force. The emigrant must be convinced that Assam holds out the opportunities of a better life than is open to him in his home land. If he is not convinced, nothing else will secure a flow of immigrants; if he is convinced it will be difficult to keep him away.(Royal Commission on Labour in India, 1929).1.2. Many of the tea gardens in Assam and Bengal are situated in highly malarial regions and this has a blighting influence on the health of the workers. Many of the workers are anaemic and fall easy victims to disease. Further, most of the workers are recruited from distant places and life in tea gardens involves for them a change in climate and environments that cannot but have a depressing effect. To make matters worse, it often happens that food ration in tea gardens is not sufficient and most of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra World City Developers Limited (Formerly Known as Mahindra Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner is a registered company. They have come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent State made in G.O.Ms. No. 88, Industries (MIE-1) Department, dated 30.7.2009 and after setting aside the same in respect of Survey Nos. 405/3, 405/4 and 405/5, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue the land acquisition proceedings and pass such further orders.3. It is the case of the petitioner that they were promoting an Industrial Park pursuant to the Government order in G.O.(2D) No. 88, Industries, dated 11.6.1997. The company had established the Industrial Park in an area about 1400 acres on the Eastern side of National Highway No. 45 near Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District. Steps were taken by the company to acquire lands in various villages including Veerapuram, Paranur, Thenmelpakkam, Rajakulipettai, Hanumanthai, Kunnavakkam and Anjur villages as well as patta lands in s...
Tag this Judgment!R. JemIn Vs. the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Depart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J. 1. Heard both sides. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, challenging the order of the first respondent made in G.O.Ms. No. 50, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-4), dated 16.6.2009 and published in the Government Gazette Extraordinary, dated 16.6.2009 in Part II Section 2.2. The notification published in the gazette reads as follows:Whereas, the opinion of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission has been sought for, regarding the disqualification of Thiru R. Jemin, 7th Ward Member, Thiruppananthal Panchayat Union, Thanjavur District as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994) as he is employed as a temporary Driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam), which is a body corporate owned and controlled by the State Government;And, Whereas, the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission, after conducting the enquiry, has stated that Thiru R. Jemin, 7th...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ramasamy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. By consent the main Writ Petitions itself are for taken up for disposal. In W.P. No. 24442/2009, the challenge is to an order passed by the third respondent dated 16.11.2009 calling for fresh tenders in respect of a road contract and for a consequential direction to permit the petitioner to complete the remaining road improvement work. In W.P. No. 24443/2009, the challenge is to an order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the second respondent by which the road contract work, which was awarded to the petitioner was cancelled and the petitioner's name was included in the list of blacklisted contractors.2. The petitioner is a registered Class - I contractor with the Rural Development Department and is stated to be performing contracts for various Government Departments, since 1970 and there has been no allegation against the petitioner. The third respondent by notification dated 10.01.2008 called for tenders from eligible contractors for certain contract work, which were ro...
Tag this Judgment!C.Ashok Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export-seaport) Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
The appellant herein, who is the authorized signatory of M/s.Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd., CHA, challenges the imposition of penalty of Rs.1 lakh upon him under the provisions of Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that he had not taken due care and precaution expected from a CHA and by his negligence, aided and abetted smuggling of red sanders logs in the guise of mica powder by M/s.S.K.Impex. 2. I have heard both sides. There is no evidence on record as to the knowledge on the part of the appellant of the substitution of red sanders logs for mica powder the Commissioner has accepted that the container containing consignment of mica powder was tampered and red sander wood logs was stuffed during transit. It is not the case of the department that the CHA was involved in the tampering. Significantly, the CHA has not been penalized. Negligence cannot result in abetment so as to warrant penal action, in the light of Tribunal s decision in A.N.Bhat Vs Collector of Customs ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumar Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2010
ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. By consent the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions raises a common question, they are taken up for disposal together. The challenge in W.P. No. 5655/2008 is to an order passed by the District Collector, Villupuram District dated 24.1.2008 and for a direction to take action against the private respondents 4 & 5. 2. The relief sought for in W.P. No. 21772/2009 is for a issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Sub-Registrar Kandamangalam to register the sale deed dated 29.04.2009 assigned pending document No. 31/2009. The fourth respondent in W.P. No. 5655/2008 is the power of attorney agent of the petitioner in W.P. No. 21772/2009.3. The case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 5655/2008 is that the respondents 4 & 5 approached the land owners of the agricultural lands in survey No. 9/1, 9/2 & 9/3 near Pondicherry Vilupuram road, and purchased the same and the lands are stated to be adjacent to the land owned b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »