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.
R. Duraisamy Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Chief Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Keeping in mind the huge pendency of cases at the level of District Judges as well as recognising the speedy trial as a fundamental right, the concept of appointing Fast Track Courts of Session was evolved and the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1251, Home (Courts 1A) Department, dated 18.12.2001, issued orders for constitution of 19 Fast Track Courts and accordingly, sanction was also given. Based on the said Government order, the Registrar-General, on the basis of the resolution of the High Court, earmarked 15 posts of Additional District Judges to be filled up by way of direct recruitment from the Bar on ad-hoc basis and the remaining 4 posts of Additional District Judges to be filled up by way of promotion from among the eligible Civil Judges Senior Division again on ad-hoc basis. Pursuant to the above, applications were called for from the eligible advocates and selection process was undertaken. Out of 15 candidates selected for the said post from the Bar, the pe...
S. Jayarani Vs. the Secretary to Government School Education Departmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. By mutual consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the first respondent dated 13.08.2007 in his proceedings in Letter No. 39473/A2/2004-13 and to direct the respondents to pay all the terminal and pensionary benefits including pension with interest.3. [a] The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as the District Elementary Educational Officer and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2005. The petitioner was allowed to retire as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 31.01.2005. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a charge memo dated 12.08.2005 and the same was kept under cold storage for about two years. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued a revised charge memo dated 13.08.007, viz., the impugned charge memo, and the allegation a...
M. Venkatachalam Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
K. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a Power Loom Factory situated at Vediarasampalayam, Mampalayam Road, Tiruchengode. A habeas corpus petition was filed before this Court in H.C.P. No. 581 of 2001. The said petition was filed by one V. Kumaravel, in which the present writ petitioner was cited as fourth respondent. A complaint was made that several persons have been kept as bonder labourers in the factory owned by the fourth respondent therein. After notice to parties, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 6.7.2001 held that the object of the habeas corpus petition was to enquire into the legality of detention of the person said to be illegally detained and they were of the opinion that there was no illegal detention of any bonded labourers and therefore, they closed the habeas corpus petition. However, with reference to the second prayer of the said petition to give a direction to the District Collector to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Bo...
M.V. Govindarajan Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is a workman. He has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an Award of the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 99/95, dated 28.4.2000. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court declined to grant any relief to the workman. The writ petition was admitted on 3.8.2001.2. The petitioner claims that he had worked in the second respondent Cooperative Bank for 12 years as a Salesman. At the time of his suspension, he was paid Rs. 500/- as monthly wages. On 7.9.1992, he was placed under suspension on certain charges. He was not paid subsistence allowance. Subsequently, he moved the payment of Subsistence Allowance authority, who directed the Cooperative Bank to pay subsistence allowance by an order dated 3.4.1995. However, the second respondent after conducting an enquiry, on 26.10.1994 terminated the petitioner from service. 3. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer. On the strength of the failure report, he...
Selvam Vs. R. Pradeep Kumar and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 22.08.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 884 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 36,560/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. Having not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation amount of Rs. 1,93,440/-.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 31.08.2004, at about 09.30 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle from south to north direction on Coimbatore to Pollachi main road, near Gandhi Nagar bus stop at Sundarapuram, with a box full of fishes for sale. He was selling the fishes from customers, who demanded them. He was keeping onto the western side of the road ...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Vone Technology India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR Shri C. Dhanasekaran appearing for the Department. The Department is in appeal because the authorities below have not imposed penalty under Section 114A in this case. We find that this is not case which attracts provisions of Section 114A since there was no short-levy or non-levy is involved. Hence the orders passed by the authorities below do not require any interference. The Department’s appeal is dismissed....
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. Global Corporation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. We have heard the learned DRs appearing on behalf of the Department. We find that the grounds of appeal taken by the Department in both these cases merit consideration including the argument that a statement not attracted for over one year has to be given credence and taken into consideration. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the lower appellate authority for fresh adjudication. He shall take into consideration the grounds of appeal advanced by the Department and shall also give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents before passing fresh orders. Both the Departmental appeals are allowed by way of remand. The cross-objections which are in the nature of supporting the impugned orders stand disposed of....
M/S. Pamban Aparel Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard the learned SDR Shri C.Dhanasekaran who states that in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Modi Rubber and Ors. - 1986 (25) ELT 849 (SC), the appeal has no merit. 2. The appellants are not present despite notice and there is also no adjournment request. In view of the adjournments granted earlier it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. As such, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution....
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Pamban Aparel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2010
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy The respondents are not present despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. Heard the learned SDR Shri C.Dhanasekaran who states that the issue involved herein is whether the impugned goods can be exempted from additional duty of excise under Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. He states that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Modi Rubber and Ors. - 1986 (25) ELT 849 (SC). Taking into account the cited decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we set aside the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority and restore the Order-in-Original. The Department’s appeal is allowed. The cross-objection filed by the respondents stand disposed of....
V. Annamalai Vs. the Executive Director (South) Food Corporation of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. W.P. Nos. 25915 to 25919 of 2009 are filed by the petitioners who are the employees of the Food Corporation of India. Incidentally, they are also members of the Food Corporation of India (South Zone) Employees Co-operative Society which is registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioners in these five writ petitions challenge a communication dated 24.11.2009 issued by the second respondent, General Manager, Regional Office of the Food Corporation of India, Chennai and another proceedings of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India dated 25.11.2009. The first order is an internal communication of the Food Corporation of India and the second order is not addressed to the petitioners and did not pertain to them.3. These writ petitions were admitted on 15.12.2009. Pending the writ petitions, in M.P. No. 3 of 2009, an interim stay was granted staying all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders. In M.P. No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »