Chennai Court March 2010 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.
A. Padmanabhan Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Authority ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
D. Murugesan, J.1. Both the writ appeals arise out of an order dated 23.10.2008 passed in W.P. No. 12297 of 2006. W.A. No. 118 of 2009 is at the instance of a salesman who worked under the Management of Parry and Company Ltd. and W.A. No. 144 of 2009 is filed by the said Management.2. The question in both the writ appeals relate to whether an employee, who has been terminated from service on the ground of proved mis-conduct, would be disentitled to the payment of gratuity in terms of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For convenience, we refer the parties as they were arrayed in the writ petition.3. The facts of the case leading to the above question are as follows:a) The writ petitioner was appointed as a salesman in the respondent-company, which is a commercial establishment acting as an agent for other manufacturers. It owned a distillery sugar mill at Nellikuppam, which produces carbon-di-oxide (CO2) as bi-product. The s...
Rajamanickam, Vs. the District Collector and District Magistrate, I/C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made by the father of the detenu in H.C.P. No.1809 of 2009 and wife of the detenus in H.C.P. Nos.1810 and 1811 of 2009 to the orders passed by the first respondent in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. Nos. 57, 56 and 58/2009 dated 7.8.2009.2. Affidavits filed in support of the petitions are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the orders under challenge.3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu in H.C.P. No.1809 of 2010 is involved in one adverse case viz. Chengalpattu Taluk police station Crime No.189 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 read with 34, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also ground case in Crime No.470 of 2009 registered by Guduvanchery police station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 5 o...
M. Suresh Vs. the State Bank of India Rep. by Its Branch Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the Tractor bearing registration No. TN-23-AV-9516 and the Trailer bearing registration No. TN-23-AV-9625 to the petitioner under Loan A/c. No. 30129202318 in view of the waiver of agricultural loans by the Central Government.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased Tractor and Trailer after raising loan from the respondent Nationalised Bank. The loan amount sanctioned was Rs. 5 lakhs bearing loan A/c. No. 30129202318. An agreement was entered into with the respondent, however copy of the same was not furnished to him. According to the terms of the agreement, petitioner has to pay Rs. 30,000/- once in six months for a period of nine years. The petitioner gave his mother's property situated in Pudupattu Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District, towards collateral security. Petitioner purchased a new Tractor bearing registration No. T...
Rabi Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
P. Murgesen, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment passed in S.C. No. 74 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, dated 11.03.2002.2. The appellant is the first accused and the respondent is the complainant.3. The case of the prosecution is as under:P.W.1-Vincent is the resident of Kallankuzhi, Marthandanvilai. The deceased Ponnappan was his brother. P.W.2-Palaiyan is the resident of Kallankuzhi and he is an agriculturist. P.W.3-Chelliahkan and P.W.4-Singarayan are also the residents of Kallankuzhi. P.W.5-Robinson is the resident of Manalikarai, Christhavapuram. P.W.6-Lazer is the resident of Vayanadu. The deceased's wife is the sister of P.W.6. P.W.7-Christudhas is the resident of Kallankuzhi and he is a coolie worker. P.W.8-Kanagappan is the resident of Anaiyadi and he is also a coolie worker. P.W.9-Rasaiyan is the resident of Kallankuzhi. P.W.10-Thangam is the wife of the deceased Ponnappan.4. The deceased Ponnappa...
J. Samuel, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. The petitioners herein seek to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 6420 of 2006 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. In such case, the petitioners are facing prosecution for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 r/w. 109 CPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant while the second and third petitioners are the parents of the first petitioner and the fourth petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner.2. The matter earlier was posted on several occasions for reporting settlement. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a Joint Petition under Section 10(A) of the Indian Divorce Act, for dissolution of marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant, has been filed before the Family Court, Chennai, in O.P. No. 3173 of 2007. Accordingly, the Family Court dissolved the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto com...
Tiruvannamalai District Indian Medicine and Homeopathic Practitioners ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from enforcing the penal provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, against the members of the petitioner's association and also to direct the 4th respondent to issue identity cards to the members of the petitioner association based on their representation dated 2.11.2009 in terms of the order made in W.P. Nos. 7402 of 1998 batch cases dated 15.6.1998.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Thiruvannamalai District Indian Medicine and Homeopathic Practitioners Welfare Association was formed in the year 2007 and registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 with Registration No. 21 of 2007. According to the petitioner, its members are doing medical practice by following the rules and regulations issued by the Government of India as well as the Government of Tamil Nadu. Its members are hel...
Radhakrishnan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to an order passed by the second respondent in Memo.480/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 23.11.2009, whereby the son of the petitioner namely Suresh @ Muttai Suresh was detained under the Act 14 of 1982, terming him as 'Goonda'.2. This Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in one adverse case viz. Crime No. 774 of 2009 registered by K9 Thiru Vi Ka Nagar police station under Sections 341, 324, 307, 506(2) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also involved in a ground case in Crime No. 779 of 2009 dated 23.10.2009 registered by K9 Thiru Vi Ka Nagar police station under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, on scrutiny of the materials, after arriving at subjective satisfaction that the...
S. Gnanasekaran Vs. the Director General of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in PR No. 33/2008, dated 22.8.2008 as well as the letter issued by the first respondent, Director General of Police, dated 18.2.2010.2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was earlier working as an Inspector of Police, Mangalamedu in Perambalur District. He investigated crime No. 916 of 1998 and filed a charge sheet before an appropriate court. The case relating to a murder of one Jayaraman and Kolanchinathan filed under Section 302 IPC. The case was ultimately tried against four accused in the Principal District Sessions Court at Perambalur as Sessions case No. 52/2002. The petitioner was examined as P.W.12. Finally, the Sessions Court held that the case was not properly investigated and since they did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused were acquitted.3. Aggrieved by the said order, a ...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Joint Secretary (Revenue), Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
Elipe Dharmarao, J.1. The respondent herein has filed the writ petition No. 30841 of 2002, challenging the Memorandum No. 9565/C2/Rev/2000, dated 10.11.2000 issued by the first appellant herein and consequently to direct the second respondent herein to issue community certificate to her son P. Sivakumar. Since the said writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court, the Administration of the Pondicherry Government is before us by way of this writ appeal.2. The case of the writ petitioner is that she belong to Adi Dravida community, having born on 14.12.1960 at Nedungadusalaipet, Pondicherry and her parents also hail from the Union Territory of Pondicherry; that she got married to her husband Mr. Paneerselvam, who also belongs to the same Adi Dravida community, who is a migrant to Pondicherry. The writ petitioner further submitted that her husband is employed in Government Service for more than 20 years and she gave birth to a male child P. Sivakumar on 2.6.1985 at Ne...
Chennimalai Yarns (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director P.M. Ramasamy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioner herein availed of finance facilities from the first respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 150 lakhs repayable in 24 quarterly instalments. The said loan was sanctioned on 30.1.1995. The petitioner agreed to pay interest at 16% per annum with a default clause of interest payable at 5% per annum with a moratorium period of two years. Admittedly, on the petitioner committing the default in the payment of the principal as well as interest, under proceedings dated 21.4.1998, the loan account was foreclosed. On the date of foreclosure, the petitioner had to pay Rs. 111.58 lakhs with interest at Rs. 15,00,172/-. It is not denied by the petitioner that after the foreclosure notice, nothing progressed from the part of the petitioner as regards the payment of the defaulted sum. Consequently, the first respondent took proceedings under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and issued possession notice on 13.6.2002. The possession wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »