Chennai Court January 2011 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.
M/S.Vishwa Infrastructures and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Chief Engine ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. It has been stated that the petitioner is a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of execution of infrastructural projects, by way of turn key contracts, for water supply schemes and other works. The petitioner company has been executing contracts for the water supply boards in the various States of India and it has considerable experience and expertise in such works. While so, the first respondent had floated a tender calling for offers, with regard to certain water supply works, to be carried out under the Vellakoil Municipality, the Kangeyam Town Panchayat and in 174 other rural habitations in Erode and Tiruppur Districts.2. It has also been stated that the petitioner company had submitted the tender for the said works. The bid comprised of a 2-tier system, with technical bid and price bid. The bidder was required to furnish a bid security of Rs.20,00,000/- in any of the specified forms. Certain conditions had been specified, wi...
P. Murugan Vs. the Principal Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the recommendations of the second respondent State Human Rights Commission, made under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, in S.H.R.C.Case Nos.6691 and 6692 of 2004.2. The recommendations of the second respondent State Human Rights Commission is as follows: "This Commission recommends that Thiru Murugan, then the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the injured persons i.e. PWs 1 to 6 at Rs.2,500/- each and the Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay the compensation at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the salary of the Sub-Inspector of Police."3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent is that the writ petition is premature in nature. The state Government may or may not accept the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission made in S.H.R.C.Case Nos.6691 a...
Solai. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of petitioner's appeal dated 21.6.2010 within a stipulated period.2. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. It is stated that the land of the petitioner has been acquired for development of the National Highways under the National Highways Act 1956. An award has been passed in February 2010. Petitioner aggrieved by the determination of compensation, has filed an appeal to the first respondent District Collector, who is the authority to arbitrate and decide the issue raised by the petitioner. Such appeal was filed on 21.6.2010. According to the petitioner, the appeal has not been disposed of so far.4. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents states that if the appeal has not been disposed of by the fi...
G.Sridharan Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.86/1997 dated 26.03.2004 dismissing the Petitioner from service, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.2. Brief facts are that Petitioner was employed as Junior Assistant in 3rd Respondent temple. On 30.01.1997, Hundiyal in the temple was opened for counting and counting was done by the temple staff including the Petitioner-Sridharan under the Supervision of officials. When counting was going on, the conduct of Petitioner aroused suspicion. Therefore, Petitioner was called to the office of 3rd Respondent-Executive Officer nearby and a search of the person was made by the Superintendent of the temple. At the time of search, it was found that Petitioner had hidden in his pant pocket and banian cash amounting to Rs.11,301/-. When questioned, Petitioner admitted his guilt and gave a statement that he had taken the said amount from the Hundiyal collections and requested the temple Authorities to pardon him...
P.Ravikumar and anr. Vs. Mr.AugustIn Babu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs, inveighing the judgement and decree dated dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Principal First Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S.No.382 of 2008 confirming the judgement and decree dated 12.12.2007 passed by the 11th Assistant City Civil Court Judge, Chennai, in O.S.No.5548 of 2004, which was filed for permanent injunction.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein, filed the suit seeking the following relief:"a) to pass a judgement and decree against the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents or an any other person or persons claiming through him from in any manner interfering w...
R.Muthulakshmi Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. This writ petition has been filed directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 27.12.2010, for the variation of the conditions of permit of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 31 C 5555, plying on the route Tirupur Old Bus Stand to Avarapalayam Pirivu via. Veerapandi.4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for this Court passing an order directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 27.12.2010.5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, the respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 27.12.2010, if it ...
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
ORDER1. This matter came to be listed on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 12.1.2011. The Writ Petition is yet to be admitted. However, Mrs.Jeyakumari, learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation takes notice for the respondent.2. The Writ Petitioner challenges an order passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act dated 8.7.2010 by the respondent. By the impugned order, the liability on the petitioner was fixed for the period from 1.6.2005 to 31.3.2006. It is claimed that the petitioner company has paid labour charges to the non-coded contractors and also paid contingency charges. For the balance sums of money, after a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, ESI Corporation determined the amount due and payable on the escaped contribution. The amount due from the company was fixed at Rs.61,74,211/-. Since already a sum of Rs.98,509/- was paid, the principal employer namely the petitioner was directed to pay balance of Rs.60,75,702/-. It is again...
K.Velmurugan Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.8.2010, and to direct the fourth respondent to register the sale deed of the petitioner, dated 18.8.2010, relating to the property bearing Plot No.155, in Thirumalai Nagar, Annexe III Layout, measuring an extent of 1200 sq.ft, in S.Nos.489/7, 510/B, 510/6 and 510/7B, situate at No.5, Morai Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, and to release the said document after registration.2. It has been stated that the property in question is a vacant site, having an extent of 1200 sq.ft, forming a part of a vast extent of lands in Morai Villai, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, which had, originally, belonged to the ancestors of one Chenchu Raja. The legal heirs of the said Chenchu Raja, had been in joint possession and enjoyment of the lands, in S.Nos.489/7, 510/5B, 510/6 and 510/7B, in Morai Vil...
K.Pattammal and ors. Vs. the Special Deputy Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
COMMON ORDER1. All the Writ Petitions are filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.A1/610/2010 dated 30.11.2010 through paper publication and quash the same as vague and defective in nature.2. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents in all the writ petitions. By consent of both parties, all the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.3. In all the writ petitions, the relief sought for is identical. Hence, all the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.4. Petitioners claim that they are in occupation of the properties mentioned in the affidavits in E.V.R.Periyar Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai. It is stated that the respondents have proposed to widen the road to provide better infrastructure. In this regard, the respondents have initiated proceedings for taking over the land under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2...
The Assistant General Manager Vs. the Central Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the award of the first respondent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, dated 16.6.2005, made in I.D.No.121 of 2003.2. It has been stated that the second respondent had been appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the local head office of the State Bank of India, at Chennai, on 1.7.1978. He had been promoted as a stenographer in the year, 1981 and he had been transferred to the Tuticorin Branch of the petitioner Bank. While so, the second respondent had indulged in certain activities which were prejudicial to the petitioner Bank. Therefore, the second respondent had been asked to submit his explanation based on the charges levelled against him. Since, the explanation, submitted by the second respondent was not satisfactory, a charge memo, dated 19.11.1988, had been issued to him.3. It has been stated that the second respondent had borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from M/s.Port City Benefit Fund Limited and he had issued two cheques for Rs.50,...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »