Chennai Court July 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.Saravanan ... Vs. the Block Development Officer, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. The petitioner states that he joined as Panchayat Assistant in Kethureddipatti Village in the year 2007. While so, he was placed under suspension by order dated 24.09.2009 based on serious allegation that he received bribe from co-workman one Gopal for giving salary arrears and he was also arrested on 24.09.2009. He made a representation dated 16.04.2010 to revoke the suspension and to reinstate him in service. The petitioner has come with the writ petition to direct the second respondent to dispose of his representation dated 16.04.2010. Since the prayer in the writ petition is a very limited one, a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that there is no bar for the second respondent to keep the petitioner under suspension till the criminal case is over and till the en...
Special Thasildhar. Vs. Pushpa, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. This appeal is filed by the Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Cuddalore against the judgment and decree in LAOP No.91 of 1996 dated 18.7.2003. The appeal is filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequent to the numbering of the appeal, notice was given to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as per the statutory requirement and the Standing Counsel appears. 2. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the Housing Board.3. The land of the 1st respondent situated in Kilperumbattur Village at Villupuram was taken over for implementing the neighbourhood scheme in constructing houses for the public. The 1st respondent claimant, who owned lands to the extent of 1720.5 Sq.ft in Survey No.32/10B, was not satisfied with the compensation ordered by the acquiring authority. It was Rs.7.35p per Sq.ft. In view of the objection to the low compensation paid, the matter was referred for determ...
R.Gnansundari, and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government, Home Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.710 Home (Personnel II) Department dated 17.8.2005 in so far as fixing the age limit and physical measurement and efficiency to the petitioner is concerned and to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners as female warders from the date from the date of their appointment with other benefits. 3. All the petitioners were appointed through Employment Exchange as Female Escort Warders to escort the female prisoners. The petitioners 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 9 were appointed in the year 1998 and 7th petitioner in the year 1999 and the fifth petitioner in the year 2000. According to the petitioners all of them are fully qualified to hold the post of Grade II Female Warders in the Prison Department. As per the Government Orders, the petitioners were...
G.S.Chandra Sekaren. Vs. the Collector, Kancheepuram District, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. Heard Mr.Rathina Asohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first and second respondents and Mr.M.Devaraj, learned counsel for the third respondent. 2. The land of the petitioner in Survey Nos.301/1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Pondur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District to an extent of 2.95 acres was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. He seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the differential compensation as per the Common order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal A.S.Nos.331 to 371 of 2008. It is admitted that the Appeals referred to above are not relating to the acquisition of land in Survey Numbers in issue. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim compensation based on the order of the Appeal. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he sought a reference to the Sub-Court relating to compensation as he was not satisfied with the quantum...
Central Organization of Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Emp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act. It is having substantial following among the workmen employed by the second respondent. The petitioner raised a dispute relating to bonus payable for the accounting year 2005-2006. They demanded 20% Bonus and 5% Ex gratia. According to the petitioner Union, the other State Agencies viz., Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Transport Corporations, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Aavin and Tamil Nadu Poombukar Shipping Corporation and TAMIN have given 20% bonus besides 5% ex gratia to their workmen. The petitioner took up the dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The conciliation ended in failure and the Conciliation Officer submitted Failure Report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(D)No.461, Labour and Employment Department, dated 06.08.2009, declining to refer the dispute for adjudication by the Industr...
G.Anandakumar, and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions raise a common point and the facts are interconnected with the consent of both parties, they are disposed of by this common order.2. Both the writ petitioners filed an appeal petition before the first respondent under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging their order of dismissal by the second respondent. The petitioners filed I.A.Nos.17 & 18/2005 for condonation of delay of 1186 days in preferring the appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent by order dated 21.03.2006, dismissed the applications filed for condonation of delay stating that the petitioners have miserably failed in justifying the inordinate delay and the reasons assigned by them is not acceptable. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the first respondent being an authority functioning under a Labour Welfare Legislative cannot adopt such an a...
Sri Kaderi Ambal Mills Ltd., Vs. the Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 14.2.2001, in so far as it relates to the demand/levy of surcharge at the rate of 2.5% or 3% per month and direct the third respondent to refund the sum of Rs.60,759/- collected from the petitioner.3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Writ petition are that the petitioner, a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, is a Textile Mill having two Units with two High Tension Service Connection Nos. 46 and 75. The sanctioned loads are 1200 KVA and 1250 KVA respectively. At the time when the petitioner was granted the service connections, they are required to pay earnest money deposit and after the supply is effected, the petitioner has to pay the current consumption deposit which will b...
M/S.Sumangala Steels Limited, and ors. Vs. Government of the Union Ter ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.15702 of 1997 dated 5.1.2001 in allowing the Writ Petition holding that the Writ Petitioner M/s.Sumangala Steels Limited is entitled to the benefits of subsidy for unexpired period ending by 30.9.1992. in W.A.No.857 of 2001, the Government of Pondicherry preferred appeal.2. Being aggrieved by the very same order in W.P.No.15702 of 1997 declining to issue writ of mandamus to sanction all the benefits conferred on new industries in Letter of Government of Pondicherry No.16(23)/82-SSI(II)/SSI(P) dated 9.12.1985 and also declining to hold that the Petitioner is entitled to full five years of tariff concession within the parameters of G.O.Ms.No.9/91-Industries Development Department (dated 11.2.1991), M/s.Sumangala Steels Limited has preferred W.A.No.522 of 2001. Both the Writ Appeals arise out of the same order and since the points for determination are one and the same, both the Writ Appeals were heard together and shall stan...
Meenakshi (Deceased), and ors. Vs. Murugan, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 30.9.2008, made in A.S.No.24 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19.4.2006, made in O.S.No.143 of 2000, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur. 2. The plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.143 of 2000, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein. The plaintiffs had filed the suit, in O.S.No.143 of 2000, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur, praying for the relief of partition, separate possession and permanent injunction against the defendants therein and for costs. 3. The plaintiffs had stated that Munusamy Naicker and his sons had purchased certain properties, in Kolappakkam Village, out of their joint efforts. The funds used for the purchase of the properties had been earned by them, from their ancestral properties, by way of joint venture. On 17.7.1972, Mu...
Santhi .. Vs. the Joint Director and Chief Medical Officer, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 12.2.2007, made in A.S.No.93 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 30.3.2005, made in O.S.No.660 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.660 of 2004, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein. 3. The plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.660 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai, praying for a decree and judgment permitting the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis and for directing the defendants in the suit to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation to the plaintiff, and for costs. 4. The plaintiff had stated that she was married to one Kannan and she had given birth to two children. Hence, she had been admitted into the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamal...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »