Chennai Court July 2010 Judgments
K.Radhakrishnan. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and Ors,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The issue lies in a very narrow campus. The second respondent is the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued a charge memo, dated, 16.04.2001 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The Enquiry was completed in the year 2002. The petitioner was in dark and he was not informed about the result of the enquiry.2. While so, the first respondent, the Appellate Authority issued a show cause notice, dated 17.05.2007, stating that the first respondent disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the first respondent could not come to the conclusion that the charges were established.3. The complaint of the petitioner is twofold and it goes to the root of the matter:-(i) While disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and asking the petitioner to submit his explanation on the differing views, the first respond...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Muthuraman Exports. Vs. the Customs and Central Excise Settlement ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 9.12.2005 passed by the first respondent Settlement Commission and direct the first respondent to take settlement application on its file and settle the issue at the rate of admitted duty liability of Rs.17,53,447/-.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner imported capital goods valued at Rs.80,33,368/- under EPCG licence issued on 17.8.2009 through seven bills of entry. The EPCG licence was issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai for the import of capital goods worth Rs.1,17,21,770/- and the original obligation was Rs.5,86,08,850/- within six years as per the Customs notification No.29/97 dated 1.4.1997. (b) The petitioner imported goods worth Rs.81 lakhs as he could export readymade garments worth Rs.2.80 crores. Petitioner executed bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.30 lakhs. Though the petitioner faced shortage of working capital and approach...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nagarathna Pandian ... Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 22.8.2005 and direct the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to disburse the arrears of leave salary, encashment of earned leave, Surrender leave, leave on private affairs, disbursement of retirement benefits such as DCRG, commuted value of pension, provident fund, special provident fund and pay 18% interest for the belated payment as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2000 (2) SLR 686.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Engineer on 5.3.1965; promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 13.6.1970; as Executive Engineer in the year 1977; and as Superintendent Engineer in the year 1994. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.1998. He was not allowed to retire by passing an order of suspension on 28.11.1998 stating that while he was holding the post of General Manager (Technical) in the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation on de...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kalarani. Vs. Madras High Court., and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the second respondent dated 2 March, 2007 whereby and whereunder she was dismissed from service.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend thus:-(i) The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate I Class as per proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.1517 dated 16.11.1999. After initial training as District Munsif, she was posted as Judicial Magistrate I Class at Dindigul. (ii) While she was functioning as Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, a criminal case for dowry harassment and related offences was filed by one Sundareswari in Crime No.19/1999 before All Women Police Station, Dindigul. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Dindigul. The case was taken on file in C.C.No.97 of 2000. After elaborate trial, the accused was acquitted as per judgment dated 9.1.2001. The judgment was partly confirmed by the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!R.ChitrA. and ors. Vs. V.A.Mavalirajan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. This Second Appeal is filed the at the instance of the legal heirs of the Plaintiff in OS.No.3684/1999, who died after passing of the decree by the Trial Court and has been entertained on the following substantial questions of law:-(a)Whether the prayer in the suit for a declaration "that the Plaintiff has got the absolute right of access and use of the passage" will amount to claiming any title over the passage so as to defeat the right of easement claimed by the Plaintiff under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 read with Section 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963?(b)Has not the lower Appellate Court given a totally perverse judgement in reversing the judgement of the Trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced regarding the easementary right claimed by the Plaintiff?2. The above said suit was instituted by the Plaintiff/mother of the Appellants herein for declaration that the Plaintiff has got the absolute right of access and use of the passage sta...
Tag this Judgment!N. Satheesh Kumar. Vs. the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 25.6.2002 passed by the third respondent confirmed by the order of the second respondent dated 16.6.2002 and also by the first respondent's order dated 20.2.2004 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary benefits.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1993 on compassionate ground in the department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. According to the petitioner while he was working in the office of the first respondent, he suffered with chronic fever and he took treatment for the same from the Chepauk Dispensary attached to the Government Hospital, Chennai. (b) The Doctor who treated the petitioner advised him to take complete rest under proper care. As no one was available at Chennai and his wife was away at Viruveedu, Dindigul District, he applied for medical leave for 15 days from...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited (In Liquidation) Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The petitioner is a company under liquidation. The same is now represented by the Official Liquidator of this Court. A Mill belonging to the petitioner company was ordered to be sold by the Company Court in public auction. Accordingly, it was sold in public auction for a sum of Rs.4.49 Crores. The bidder in whose favour the sale was confirmed filed two applications before the Company Court in C.A.Nos.979/1991 and 980/1991 praying the Company Court to permit him to pay a part of consideration of Rs.2.23 Crores in 80 instalments and further praying to grant lease of the Mill namely, Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited. He further submitted that he was ready to pay a sum Rs.2.26 Crores towards part sale consideration. The Company Court by order dated 12.8.1991 accordingly granted permission to the bidder to pay Rs.2.26 Crores within six months without interest and to pay the balance of Rs.2.23 Crores in 80 monthly instalments regularly commencing from 1.12.1991. He was further d...
Tag this Judgment!N.Saravanan. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.9 SMALL INDUSTRIES (EII.1) DEPARTMENT dated 22.02.2000 on the ground that the petitioner's appointment made on 04.08.1998 on compassionate ground was un-lawfully terminated without any notice on 22.02.2000. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father late G.Navaneetha Krishnan while serving as Assistant Director died on 16.04.1997 leaving behind his wife and six children. The petitioner's mother, immediately after the death of her husband late G.Navaneetha Krishnan, submitted an application dated 02.06.1997 seeking appointment for the petitioner on compassionate ground to take care of the family. On receipt of the representation dated 02.06.1997, to select the petitioner, the 4th son of the deceased Government servant, the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 07.06.1997 in Na.Ka.No.56822/Pa.Aha.3/97 directed the petitioner's mother to prod...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mir Ali Mehdi, and ors. Vs. the Inspector of Police W-23, All Women ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. These petitioners seek quash proceedings in C.C. No. 9688 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The first petitioner is the son of the petitioners 2 & 3. The first petitioner married the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant on 07.01.2001. The petitioners are facing prosecution for offences under Section 498(A), 406 IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in a case pending in C.C. No. 9688 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.2. When the matter is taken up today, it is represented that the defacto complainant / wife of the first petitioner and other petitioners have arrived at a settlement and thereunder, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been paid to the second respondent. Informing that there is no further dispute, the second respondent has, under affidavit dated 30.07.2010, stated that she has no objection to quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 9688 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Metropolitan Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2010
1. The 2nd respondent was originally appointed as Manager in Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited on 26.05.1986. Between 14.06.1994 and 19.08.1997, he was working as Branch Manager at Calicut Branch of the said Bank. In respect of certain misconduct said to have been committed by him, a charge sheet was issued to him on 23.02.1996. Denying the same, the 2nd respondent submitted his explanation on 23.03.1996. Thereafter, an additional charge sheet was issued on 28.03.1996, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.04.1996 thereby denying the additional charges also. Not satisfied with the said explanations, an enquiry officer was appointed to hold an enquiry into the charges. Totally, as many as 23 charges were framed against him. On completing the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 11.07.1997 holding as many as 13 charges were proved. He held the other charges not proved. Based on the same, a second show cause notice was issued to him calling upon him to subm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »