Chennai Court January 2011 Judgments

A.Palaniappan Vs. the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu High Court and or ...

Court: Chennai

O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order passed by learned Advocate General declining permission to the petitioner to initiate criminal contempt against respondents 2 to 4.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a trade union leader and had filed a suit, against show cause notice issued by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, in which, respondents 1 to 3 were employees as Officers.3. The total number of suits filed by the petitioner are ten, against the different show cause notices issued to him. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the respondents herein challenged the maintainability of the suits on the ground that as the show cause notices related to service matters, therefore, dispute can be adjudicated only under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.4. It is the case of the petitioner that oral undertaking given in the Court was not complied with, which had to be recorded in writing. That serious allegations w...

E.Mohan Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.

Court: Chennai

O R D E R1. Being aggrieved with the dismissal of I.D.No.35 of 1997 and challenging the order of compulsory retirement, Petitioner-Workman has filed this Writ Petition.2. Brief facts are that Petitioner while employed in EMMD department of the 2nd Respondent was issued charge sheet on 21.5.1993 for obstructing and beating one of the co-worker viz., Muthusamy, Stores Attendant with stones while he was going in bicycle to attend to his usual shift which resulted in swelling on his right leg thigh. Petitioner is also alleged to have threatened him to advice one Dhanapal to withdraw the theft complaint lodged against the Petitioner. Petitioner was kept under suspension pending enquiry w.e.f. 07.05.1993 for another theft charge.3. Petitioner was again issued another charge sheet dated 04.10.1993 for the misconduct committed by him viz., on 29.09.1993 at about 8.45 a.m. some unknown persons were unauthorisedly loading Dunite from Company's Mines into lorry bearing registration No.TN-09 3850 ...

Dr.R.Padmavathy Vs. the Secretary to Government and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2011(2)CTC129

J U D G M E N T1. The appellant, a Gynecologist in Government Hospital, Mettur Dam, was subjected to a departmental proceeding on the charges of demanding bribe and dereliction of duty, and on the basis of the charges proved against her, she was dismissed from service.2. The charges against the appellant are that on 18.9.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. a pregnant lady by name Tmt.Boodhammal, aged 18 years, came to the Government Hospital, Mettur Dam for confinement. A staff nurse examined the case and informed the appellant over phone that the pregnancy was in advanced stage. The appellant without attending the patient immediately informed the staff nurse over phone to get ready for cesarean operation and informed the patient to make ready a sum of Rs.1500/- for purchase of materials, though the expenditure would be only about Rs.250/-. When the patient could not afford to pay the said amount, the appellant instructed the staff nurse to refer the patient to Salem for further treatment, as a re...

Kannappan Iron and Steel Company Pvt Ltd Vs. the Regional Director and ...

Court: Chennai

COMMON ORDER1. The petitioner is the one and the same person in both the Writ Petitions. The petitioner is running a Factory at T.R.Pattanam in R.S.No.10/1 at Nagoor Road, Vanjoor coming under Karaikal region of Union Territory of Puducherry. When the petitioner received Notices dated 2.4.2004 from the ESI Corporation directing them to recover from employees under the ESI Act for the period from 9/2000 to 3/03 and for the subsequent period from 4/203 to 9/03, the petitioner filed two Writ Petitions challenging the demand notices.2. The Writ Petitions were admitted on 5.5.2004. In respect of the 1st Writ Petition, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.40,000/- with the respondent ESI Corporation and in respect of the 2nd Writ Petition, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.10,000/-. It is now claimed by Mr.C.P.Siva Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner that interim order has been complied with.3. On notice from this Court in both the Writ Petitions, the respondents ha...

Jeyakumar Vs. State of Tamilnadu and ors.

Court: Chennai

O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been allotted a flat bearing No.H-40, under G.O.2(D) No.158, dated 11.8.2005, in the Hosur Neighbourhood Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. While so, by a communication from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, dated 21.6.2006, the petitioner had been offered a vacant land situated adjacent to the flat allotted to him. Even though the petitioner had fulfilled all the necessary requirements, the first respondent had passed the order, dated 21.7.2006, in G.O.(2D).No.63, cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, without issuing any notice to him. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Housing Board had submitted that the allotment order ...

Avalappali Grade I Panchayat Vs. the Collector and anr.

Court: Chennai

O R D E R1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus or Direction prohibiting the 2nd Respondent from allotting the land measuring an extent of 1.43.0 Hectares comprised in S.F.No.544 of Avalapalli village, Hosur Taluk to dhobies who do not belong to Avalapalli village panchayat and consequentially not to interfere with the Petitioner's right in allotting the above said land to the landless poor people belonging to the said village panchayat.2. The then President of Petitioner panchayat has filed the Writ Petition. Case of Petitioner is that on 10.12.1997, Petitioner panchayat has passed a resolution stating that the land measuring an extent of 1.43.0 Hectares in S.F.No.544 of Avalapalli village was categorised as poramboke land and that it may be allotted to the landless people of Avalapalli panchayat. According to Petitioner, the said resolution was passed in accordance with the communication of 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.84451/1997 dated 20.01.1997 and also as directed by the Tahsildar in ...

Management, Malaysian Airlines Vs. the Presiding Officer

Court: Chennai

1. The second respondent herein raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.579 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai alleging that he was stopped from work with effect from 07.04.1993 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He prayed for an award to reinstate him from service with backwages and all the other monetary benefits. The Labour Court by award dated 22.08.1996 dismissed the said petition holding that the second respondent herein is not entitled for the reliefs as sought for by him in the petition. Challenging the same, the second respondent filed W.P.No.1958 of 1997 before this Court. By order dated 28.10.2003, a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the award of the Labour Court and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, I.D.No.579 of 1993 was again taken up by the learned Principal Labour Court, Chennai and ultimately, the Labour Court by award dated 30.01.2004 held...

Murugesan @ Chinnappa Vs. Saroja Ammal

Court: Chennai

1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 30.1.2006 passed by the Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam, in A.S.No.67 of 2004 confirming the judgement and decree dated 16.3.2004 passed by the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, in O.S.No.138 of 1997, which was filed for declaration and recovery of possession.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. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: (a) The plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and recovery of possession of the same with damages. (b) Written statement was filed refuting and impugning the allegations/averments in the plaint.(c) Whereupon issues were framed by the trial Court. The plaintiff, on his side examined himself as P.W.1...

All India Overseas Bank Vs. the Presiding Officer

Court: Chennai

O R D E R1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is the Award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.97/2001 dated 09.01.2003 whereby the Industrial Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of punishment dismissing the workman Rajangam from the services of the 2nd Respondent Bank.2. Brief facts are that Workman Rajangam was appointed as Messenger in the subordinate cadre in 1983 in the 2nd Respondent Bank and was attached to their Nachalur branch. Savings Bank Account No.3386 in the name of Petitioner's brother Krishnamurthy was opened on 28.11.1990 with Rs.25/-. A small loan of Rs.5000/- was sanctioned in the name of Petitioner's brother Krishnamurthy on 30.11.1990 for provision shop and the same was credited to his S.B. Account No.3386. An amount of Rs.5029/- was debited to his account for issuing Bankers' Cheque favouring Arunachalam Maligai. The above Bankers' cheque of Rs.5029/- and another Bankers' cheque of Rs.5015/- totalling Rs.10,044/- was credited to S.B. Account No.2263 of Ar...

Lanco Infratech Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

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. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondent to release the goods detained, vide Goods Detention Notice No.3012/2010-2011, dated 21.12.2010, on the petitioner paying 4% of tax on Rs.6,95,27,708/- and on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the remaining 8.5% of tax on the said amount, to the satisfaction of respondent.4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the respondent is directed to release the goo...