Chennai Court September 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.
Michael Raj . Vs. the Secretary of Govt., Education Department, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1.The petitioner joined service on 20.09.1965 as Secondary Grade Assistant and retired from service on 30.04.1997 after rendering 32 years of service. According to the petitioner, on completion of 30 years of service, the Government ought to have granted stagnation increment as per G.O.Ms.No. 241, Finance Department, dated 01.04.1981. The grievance of the petitioner is that the stagnation increment was not granted as per G.O.Ms.No. 241. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.4543 of 2000 (W.P.No.43975/2006) praying for a direction to the respondents to pay the stagnation increment with effect from 20.09.1995 on completion of 30 years of service. 2. The first respondent filed counter affidavit to delete the 1st respondent as he is not a necessary party to this petition and the original application (writ petition)has to be dismissed as against the first respondent. 3. In this case, the petitioner has retired in the year 1997. After retirement, issue relating the pension ought to be settled with the ...
G.Sivakumar. Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. The petitioner is a Secondary Grade Teacher in Thirupporur Panchayat Union. One Mr.V.Marimuthu is his junior. The petitioner joined the service on 27.12.1989, while Mr.V.Marimuthu joined on 07.08.1991. The petitioner was granted incentive increments for acquiring higher qualification in the year 1994. The incentive increments were paid before the revision of pay. After revision of pay, his junior viz., Mr.V.Marimuthu obtained incentive increment in the year 1996. This resulted in junior getting more pay. The request for putting the petitioner on par with his junior was rejected by the order dated 13.10.1999 of the Additional Elementary Educational Officer, Thirupporur, the second respondent herein. 2. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.5045 of 2000, to quash the aforesaid order dated 13.10.1999 of the second respondent and for a direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior V.Marimuthu and grant him all consequen...
Pandian Engineering Industries and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. Heard both sides. These two cases were listed before the Division Bench today but since DB is not sitting and since both the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Single Member Bench, with the consent of both sides, both the appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal. 2) In Appeal No.786/2004, the appellants cleared the impugned goods during the month of March 2000. They were required to pay the duty amount of Rs.2,57,345/- by 15th of April 2000. The impugned goods were cleared under prescribed invoices etc. and entries were made in the books of account but due to the financial difficulty, duty was not paid. Ld. Advocate for the appellants states that duty along with penal interest of 30% has been paid by the appellants during the period January 2001 to July 2003. The original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- on the appellants taking into account the fact that there is no suppression etc. involved in this case and also that the appellants have paid the entire amo...
Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, C ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-2010
1. Heard both sides. This case was listed before the Division Bench today but since DB is not sitting and this case falls within the jurisdiction of the Single Member Bench, with the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2) The appellants had imported components for manufacture of circular knitting machines without payment of duty initially against advance licence. Some components were not utilized for manufacture of circular knitting machines for export and on such unutilized components, the appellants have paid the differential additional duty of customs and such components have been utilized by them in the manufacture of machines which have been cleared for home consumption on payment of duty. They have obtained the necessary certificate from the customs authorities regarding payment of the differential duty and on that basis, they have taken credit of the additional duty of customs on 24.6.2000 and on 15.7.2000. The appellants were issued with a s...
M.Belli . Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. The petitioner was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School at Thuneri, Nilgris District. He sought promotion to the post of P.G.Assistant and he made a representation dated 30.12.1998 in this regard. He filed the Original Application in O.A.No.871 of 1999 seeking promotion. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed an order dated 08.02.1999 directing the authorities to consider the representation dated 30.12.1998 of the petitioner, on merits and pass an order, within a stipulated time. Accordingly, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.04.1999, stating that there is no provision for promotion of Secondary Grade Teacher to the post of P.G.Assistant, even if the Secondary Grade Teachers are fully qualified for the post of P.G.Assistant. 2. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.3793 of 2000, to quash the aforesaid order dated 19.04.1999 of the third respondent and for a direction ...
G.Viswanathan. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. The petitioner applied for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1997-98. He came out successfully in the written examination conducted on 19.07.1998. He was asked to appear for Personal Interview on 01.12.1998. He came out successfully in the interview also. He was called for Medical Test on 08.02.1999. He was declared medically fit in the Medical Test. He was selected as Sub-Inspector of Police by an order dated 23.03.1999. He was informed that he would be sent for training in the Second Batch of Training. 2.By the proceedings dated 05.05.2000, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to report before the Principal, Temporary Police Training College at Veerapuram, Chennai 600 055 on 21.05.2000 with his Identity Card and all Original Documents relevant to educational qualification and Community Certificate. 3.The petitioner belongs to ST community. He was selected under the ST quota. But he did not have the Community Certificate. He applied for the same be...
R. Ganesan . Vs. Rane Luk Clutch (P) Ltd., and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. For the sake of convenience the parties in this common order are referred to as 'Management' and 'Workman'.2. Both the writ petitions came to be filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Salem, made in I.D.No.324 of 2002 dated 5.4.2005. W.P.No.24488 of 2006 is filed by the Workman challenging the portion of the award refusing reinstatement, backwages and continuity of service to him, and W.P.No.36478 of 2005 is filed by the Management challenging the award ordering compensation of Rs.60,000/- apart from gratuity and other benefits to the Workman.3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:(a) The Workman, after being discharged from CRPF, was appointed as Security Guard on 16.10.1996 in the Management and his service was confirmed on 16.4.1998. On 1.4.2000, he was transferred to production department and during his employment in production department, he was suspended for two days for misbehaving with the canteen worker. Again he was s...
R.Sengodan . Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable, Grade II on 14.08.1974. While he was working in the erstwhile composite Salem District in Mettur in the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, a criminal case was registered against 31 persons belonging to Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Mettur Unit. The petitioner herein was implicated as the 14th Accused. The case was tried before the Special Judge and I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in S.C.C.No.152/90. 2.The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 18.01.1991, in view of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. The learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner by his judgment dated 07.05.1999. 3.In the meantime, the order of suspension was quashed by the Tribunal by an order dated 18.01.1996 in O.A.No.5521 of 1995. Hence, he was reinstated in service on 12.05.1996. Though the suspension was quashed and the criminal Court acquitted him of all the ch...
S.Palanivel Rajan. Vs. the Director of Public Health and Preventive Me ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. The petitioner's mother was employed as a Health Supervisor and she died on 19.09.1985 in harness, while she was in service. The petitioner was a minor, when his mother died. After, he became major, he made an application for compassionate appointment. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.01.2000 on the ground that the petition for compassionate appointment was made after 12 years. It is the only ground, based on which, the application was rejected. 2. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.3369 of 2000, to quash the aforesaid order of the respondent dated 14.01.2000 and for a direction to the respondent to appoint him on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. 3. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.1012 of 2007. 4. Heard Mr.P.Mohan Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent...
Vijayalakshmi . Vs. RajA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2010
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.1999 in A.S.No.141 of 1998 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.2.The First Appellate Court while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.141 of 1998 on 28.01.1999 has inter alia observed that '...the Defendant/Respondent is not now in joint possession of the suit properties. However, after he acquires right upon the said properties as stated supra, the presumption is that he is also a co-owner. But, the contention on behalf of the Appellant is that the Respondent/Defendant being an alienee from Seeniammal, another Co-owner is not entitled to joint possession with the Appellant upon the said properties and that the Appellant is entitled to seek injunction against him. But, it is not a case between a Coparcenar and a stranger alienee from coparcenar. Therefore, the said contention on behalf of the Appellant is not accepted. Therefore, it is held that the Plaintiff/Ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »