Chennai Court March 2010 Judgments

S.A. Antony Vs. the Secretary to Government, Handloom, Handicrafts, Te ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This is a second round of the writ petitioner coming to the Court. In the first round of litigation, he filed W.P. Nos. 14172 to 14174 of 2007, challenging the orders of punishment. A learned Judge of this Court by a common order dated 1.8.2007 dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by him. This was on the ground that he had already filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and pending the appeal, he cannot seek to quash the orders dated 22.7.2005, 18.7.2005 and 22.7.2005. In that Writ Petitions, he not only asked for setting aside the orders of punishment but also for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Sericulture. This court held that when the petitioner is facing penalty, the question of including his name in the promotion panel will not arise.2. As against the order passed by the learned Judge, the petitioner preferred three Writ Appeals being W.A. Nos. 1423 to 1425 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court by a common ...

Jayaraj Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

M. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to the judgment dated 16.12.2009 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C. No. 126 of 2009, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded with life imprisonment and to pay a find of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows:(i) P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased. P.W.5 is another daughter of the deceased, who was given in marriage to the accused. P.W.1, the deceased along with the members of his family were residing at Anna Nagar, Kannampalaiyam within the jurisdiction of the respondent-police. P.W.5 was married to the accused/appellant and she was ill-treated by the accused since he was entertaining suspicion over the fidelity.(ii) On the date of occurrence i.e. 16.10.2...

N. Ganapathy Vs. the Collector

Court: Chennai

ORDERB. Rajendran, J.1. The applicant was initially appointed as Junior Assistnat on 01.09.1973 and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant in October 1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar and posted in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai. His services in the post of Deputy Tahsildar was also regularised with effect from 30.10.1992. Subsequently, the respondent, by his proceedings dated 16.10.1999 drawn a panel for promotion to the post of Tahsildars for the year 1998 in which the names of 31 persons have been included, but the name of the applicant was not included. According to the applicant, the persons, who were shown in serial Nos. 17 to 31 of the said panel dated 16.10.1999 are juniors to him. In the said proceedings, it was stated that the applicant's name was not included and he was found to be unfit for inclusion in the panel as charges are pending against the applicant. Therefore, challenging the same, the applicant has filed the abo...

Dr. N. Lingappan Vs. the Syndicate, Anna University and ors.

Court: Chennai

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is an existing Professor in the Department of Chemistry of Anna University. He has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the appointment of the 5th respondent as the Lecturer in Chemistry. The said appointment of the 5th respondent took place as early as 10.9.1998. His appointment was approved by the Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 118.3.5 of the 118th Meeting of the Central Government held on 18.2.1988.2. Incidentally the petitioner belonged to the same Department as that of the 5th respondent. While the 5th respondent is holding the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner holds the post of Professor. In his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, he had stated that he works in the very same Department right from 1974 and he is aware of the 5th respondent's appointment when it was made even in the year 1988. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner came to know the alleged defect/lack of qualification o...

Chennai Yettrumathi Valaga Uzhiyargal Matrum Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]156CompCas1(Mad)

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.1. The writ petitioner is the appellant and aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, has filed this writ appeal.2. The facts in brief, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:The petitioner Union claims that it represent the interest of the workers who are working in the campus of Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ), at Tambaram and it also represents the workmen of M/s. Nova Electro Magnetics Limited.3. The said company became sick and sought a reference before the BIFR, which appointed the third Respondent viz., Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), as the Operating Agency to examine the viability of the proposals and for formulation of a scheme for rehabilitation. The BIFR vide orders dated 6.5.2001, issued directions and one such direction was for preparation of a rehabilitation scheme.4. M/s. Nova Electro Magnetics Limited, aggrieved by the orders passed by the BIFR, preferred an appeal before the AIFR and the s...

Madras Fertilizers Ltd. Rep. by Its Executive Director (P and A) Vs. E ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The first writ petition is filed by the Madras Fertilizers Limited, seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent ESI Corporation, dated 4.8.2000 and the order, dated 24.8.2000 issued by the second respondent Recovery officer.2. By order dated 4.8.2000, the petitioner company was informed that they have not submitted Returns from April, 1992 to July, 1999 and they owe an accumulated dues of Rs. 82,72,656/-. Hence notice was issued, informing the petitioner that if amounts were not paid, then recovery will be made in terms of Section 45-B of the ESI Act. Consequent upon the said order, the Recovery Officer, i.e. second respondent issued notice stating that total amount due from the petitioner company worked out to Rs. 1,21,14,581. Therefore, he was asked to inform the State Bank of India, Manali MFL Branch to withhold any amount due to the company and credited it to the ESI Corporation.3. When the writ petition came up on 29.8.2000, notice was directed to ...

Tribology India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides. Shri C.Venugopal, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants states that the appellants were not aware that there was duty liability on jigs and fixtures manufactured by them and utilized in their own factory of production as well as in another factory of theirs outside the factory of production. Moreover, when this was brought to their notice, they promptly paid Rs.2,96,756/- before issue of show-cause notice. Later on, a SCN was issued to them demanding Rs.2,94,661/- as Excise Duty and Rs.5356/- as Education Cess totalling to an amount of Rs.3,00,017/-. On adjudication, the original authority allowed the appellants the benefit of Notification No.67/95 in respect of the captive consumption of jigs and fixtures within the factory of production. As such, the duty demand worked out to Rs.1,86,125/- inclusive of Education Cess. He also quantified interest amount of Rs.30,900/- and imposed an equal penalty of Rs.1,86,125/-. 2. Shri Venugopal, learned consultant plead...

Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Heard both sides. In view of the fact that the issue of denying CENVAT credit on welding electrodes used in repair and maintenance of machinery has been settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SAIL Vs Commissioner - 2008 (229) ELT A127 (SC), the appeal of the appellants has no merit and hence the same is dismissed....

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaya and ors.

Court: Chennai

C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 23.09.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1619 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), at Cuddalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 6,70,500/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the award granted by the Tribunal.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 07.06.2003, at about 10.15 p.m. while the (deceased) P. Sekar was walking from south to north direction at his extreme left hand side of the Villupuram to Chennai G.S.T. Road at Villupuram and opposite to Aristo Hotel, the first respondent's car bearing registration No. TN 31 B 6374, coming in the same direction and driven at a high spee...

Vijaya Bank Workers' Union rep. by Its Deputy General Secretary Vs. th ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. The petitioner is a trade union. They have come forward to challenge the Award passed by the first respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short CGIT) made in I.D. No. 26 of 2000, dated 17.1.2001.2. By the impugned Award, the CGIT rejected the claim put forth by the union regarding the action of the management in not considering part time sweepers for permanent part time sweepers is justified. The writ petition was admitted on 27.4.2001. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay against the operation of the Award. Subsequently, on 9.9.2003, the interim stay was made absolute. 3. Brief facts leading to the case are as follows:The petitioner trade union raised an industrial dispute demanding consideration of M/s. Ajith kumar, S. Surendran, S. Arunachalam, P. Indragandhi, V. Muthulakshmi and P. Jeeva, working as part time sweepers to be considered for the post of permanent part time sweepers. When ...