Chennai Court February 2010 Judgments

Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India a ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]155CompCas201(Mad)

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the order of the BIFR dated January 22, 2007, in paragraphs 10(i), (ii), (iii) of the sanctioned scheme as well as the proceedings dated February 16, 2009, in paragraph 12(c) and the clarification dated April 2, 2009.2. The petitioner was declared a sick industrial company by the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A scheme for rehabilitation of the petitioner was sanctioned by the BIFR on January 22, 2007. For the purpose of the present dispute, Clause No. 10 of the scheme would be relevant which is as follows:10. Special terms and conditions(i) The existing equity capital of the company is to be reduced by 50 per cent, by reducing the face value of the shares from Rs. 10 to Rs. 5 in terms of S...

H.V. Byrappa Vs. the Special Tahsildar (La) and the District Collector

Court: Chennai

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 31.12.2007 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a further direction to refer the Award No. 2/2007 to the civil court under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.2. The writ petition was not admitted. From time to time, it was adjourned. On 21.8.2009, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to find out whether the owner of the property had raised any objection for receiving compensation and whether the Award was intimated to the land owner. On 09.10.2009, this Court recorded that an Award was already passed in this matter and it was also received by the subsequent purchaser. Therefore, it was directed to be posted for orders.3. The case of the petitioner was that the property in Survey No. 270/1B Dry land measuring an extent of 0.59.0 hectares in Hanuma...

Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Che ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERElipe Dharmarao, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Administration, challenging the order passed by the first respondent thereby granting the relief of re-fixation of the pay of the first respondent, as prayed for.2. The second respondent herein joined as the Assistant Station Master in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 on 13.3.1989 through Railway Service Commission, Chennai and on successful completion of the initial training, he was absorbed as Assistant Station Master with effect from 18.8.1989 and subsequently promoted as Station Master Grade-III in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 with effect from 5.1.1992. The equivalent scale in the V Pay Commission to the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was Rs. 5000-8000 and while the second respondent herein was working as such, he was promoted to the post of Traffic Apprentice in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 against 10% limited departmental competitive examination quota of Station Master Grade-II and was directed for training and after completion of...

Muthupandi (A) Thavakkalai and ors. Vs. State Rep. by the Sub Inspecto ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment by the learned Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli, in Special Case No. 782 of 2000, dated 31.05.2005.2. Accused 1 to 5, who stand convicted for offences under Sections 148 and 307 r/w 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for offences under Section 148 and 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, for offences under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC, are the appellants herein.3. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused armed with deadly weapons attacked the injured PW-1 Rajagopal at about 2.30 pm on 06.11.1999 at the bus stop at a village by name Kandavilai, causing multiple injuries. PW-1 survived the gruesome attack, wherein he suffered as many as 12 grave injuries involving fracture of the skull, fracture of bones on both legs as also of the wrist bones....

N. Deiva Vs. the Collector,

Court: Chennai

ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by N.Deiva, W/o. Anbarasan, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.PG1/1994/2008 dated 21.07.2009, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Noon Meal Organiser in Panchayat Union Primary School, Bankur, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District.2. In response to the notification issued by the 1st respondent, District Collector, Vellore, calling for application for the post of Noon Meal Organiser and helpers within the age group of 25 to 40, the petitioner submitted her application along with certificates in support of her education, age and residence. The petitioner claims to possess all the required qualification as per the notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 23.12.2008. The requisite qualification for the post of Noon Meal Organiser is that:(i) a candidate should have passed SSLC.(II) a candidate should be in between th...

J. Gowtham Chand and G. Vimala Vs. J.M.S. Prabhu and J. Lazaru Michael ...

Court: Chennai

R. Subbiah, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 05.02.2010 passed in I.A. No. 25313 of 2009 in O.S. No. 13284 of 2009 by the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for interim injunction by the appellants was dismissed.2. The facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in the appeal are as follows:(a) The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S. No. 13284 of 2009. The plaintiffs filed the said suit for a declaration that the alleged sale deed dated 21.04.1982 said to have been executed by the 1st plaintiff in favour of S.N. Panneer Selvam and Thanaseeli Panneer Selvam and registered as Document No. 1566 of 1982 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Joint II at Saidapet in respect of the suit property is a sham and nominal one and not binding on the plaintiffs and for a declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit propert...

S. Nandakumar Vs. Licensing Officer/R.T.O. and Motor Vehicle Inspector

Court: Chennai

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent dated 08.02.2010 by which, the first respondent by exercising powers under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called as Act) has temporarily suspended the driving licence of the petitioner for the period from 08.02.2010 to 08.05.2010.3. The petitioner, who has got a driving license to run light motor vehicle on 06.12.1993 has also obtained license to drive heavy transport vehicle on 24.05.1995 and subsequently, the same was renewed. According to the petitioner, the same was valid upto 05.12.2011.4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined in a private transport company in 1995 and he is not involved in any accident and no complaint of rash and negligent driving in the past 15 years. It is stated that while he was driving a private bus bearing Registration No. TN...

B.K. Gunasekaran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. By consent the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. Since, the petitioner in all the three writ petitions is the same person and the issue involved in all the three writ petitions raised a common question, they are disposed of by a common order.2. The prayer in the Writ Petition No. 14682/2009 is to quash the charge memo issued to the petitioner dated 18.10.2004. W.P. No. 12044/2004 has been filed to quash the charge memo dated 30.01.2004 and W.P. No. 20807/2008 was filed challenging the charge memo dated 21.09.2006.3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition could be briefly set down as hereunder. While, the petitioner was functioning as Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Coimbatore, the charge memo dated 18.10.2004 came to be issued containing two sets of charged. Both the charges related to a release deed presented for registration before the Joint Sub Registrar II Central Madras, in document No. 561/2001 dated 20.06.2001 and the...

A.S. Venkateswaran Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu S ...

Court: Chennai

R. Banumathi, J.1. This Appeal arises out of the Order in W.P. No. 14467 of 1991 dismissing the Writ Petition and declining to quash the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the Appellant.2. The brief facts, which led to filing of Writ Petition, are as follows:Appellant joined Government Pressure Die Casting Unit, Guindy, then under the Control of the Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tamil Nadu as a Foreman Trainee on 10.3.1965. He has held various positions in Department of Industries and Commerce and he was promoted as Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce in Salem. During July, 1974, he was deputed to Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO) and posted as Assistant Development Officer in the Raw Material Division. Within months of his deputation to SIDCO, Government selected him for the assignment of 'Management by Objectives' Adviser for SIDCO as well as the Industries Department. For various irregularities noticed i...

T.K. Ayub Vs. Mohammed Hanif and ors.

Court: Chennai

ORDERR. Mala, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the order dated 24.11.2006 in L.A.O.P. No. 27 of 1994 and in I.A. No. 199 of 2000 in L.A.O.P. No. 27 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pondicherry.2. The petitioner herein has filed application in I.A. No. 199 of 2000 in L.A.O.P. No. 27 of 1994, to condone the delay of 624 days in filing a petition to set aside the order dated 30.6.1998 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 27 of 1994 and to restore the same to the file, to implead him as one of the respondents to adjudicate his claim for compensation as a person interested and to apportion the same in the compensation amount awarded by the respondent-Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry. Since he is a cultivating tenant, the person interested, he is entitled to compensation and hence he sought for the above reliefs. The respondents filed counter affidavit to the said application.3. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both counsel, dismis...