Chennai Court January 2011 Judgments
The Manager Vs. P.E.Amaravathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent viz., I Additional Labour Court, Chennai dated 11.9.2002 and made in C.P.No.313 of 1998 and set aside the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has entered into service of the petitioner's Federation as a part time Sweeper on 26.9.1975. Initially the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.45/- only per mensum as consolidated pay and subsequently the same was enhanced to Rs.60/- per mensum and thereafter to Rs.300/- per mensum with effect from 1.4.1991 and further enhanced to Rs.500/- per mensum with effect from 20.1.1997. For a part time sweeper, the working hours prescribed for her in a day is only 2 hours and the first respondent is not subject to any disciplinary action if she seeks employment anywhere else during the remaining hours. When the first respondent was not confirmed in her service as a part-time sweeper, she moved the appropriate authority under the T...
Tag this Judgment!K.Murugan Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner joined the office of the respondents, as Assistant Engineer on 16.10.1989. Thereafter, he has been promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 2007. While he was working in the capacity of Assistant Engineer, he was deputed by the respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.523, Public Works (D1) Department, dated 03.11.1999 to study, Master of Engineering in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering at Anna University in Government cost. It is seen that, respondent No.1 in the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1195, Public Works Department, dated 11.07.1972 has taken a decision to grant two advance increments for such of those employees in the cadre of Assistant Engineers who have acquired the post-graduate decree in engineering. 2.The Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1195, Public Works Department, dated 11.07.1972 was subsequently modified by the Government order passed in G.O.Ms.No.843, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 05.09.1983, whereby th...
Tag this Judgment!Hallmark Industries Vs. Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
ORDER1. Heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Murali, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2, Mrs.S.Jothivani, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Mr.V.Subburayan, learned counsel for the 4th and 5th respondents.2. The petitioner is an employer. They have filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the 1st respondent Tahsildar, Tambaram, Kancheepuram District. By the impugned order, the Tahsildar, Tambaram gave a distraint order against the petitioner Company for recovering a sum of Rs.2,15,280/- together with interest on account of their liability arising out of the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. However, at the time when the Writ Petition was filed, the petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum-Workmen Compensation made in W.C.No.80 of 2001 dated 3.8.2004.3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 23.10.2009. P...
Tag this Judgment!S.Mohammed Hanifa Vs. Tmt.Fathima Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgment and decree dated 14.3.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Chennai, in A.S.No.529 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2004 passed by the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.6033 of 1998, which was filed for getting permanent and mandatory injunctions.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. The factual matrix relating to this case would run thus:(a) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:"to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 2 to 4 yo pay rent totaling of Rs.3,300/- per month to the plaintiff from the date of the plaint. (b) Resisting the said suit, the defe...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. T.R.Mohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2007 passed in W.P.No.1951 of 2007, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants/State Government to execute lease agreement for the period of 6 months on deposit of proportionate lease amount in respect of the sand quarry measuring 10.00.0 Hectares comprised in Survey No.643 situated in Oruwandhur Village, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District in the light of the order of the Supreme Court passed in C.A.No.5572 of 2005 dated 24.03.2006.2. The respondent/writ petitioner sought the aforesaid relief on the basis of the facts briefly stated herein below. The respondents case is that he participated in the tender-cum-auction conducted by the District Collector, Namakkal District in respect of sand quarry measuring 10.00.0 Hectares comprised in S.F.No.147/1 situated in Devarayasamudram Village, Paramathi-Velur Taluk, Namakkal District, and was declared as a successful b...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar Vs. Kuppuswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the award passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2005 whereby the award dated 10.01.2000 passed in Award No.5/B/1999-2000 by the Land Acquisition Officer has been enhanced from Rs.25,000/- per hectare to Rs.11,32,560/-. 2.A notification has been issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (shortly "the Act") and the same was published in the Government Gazattee on 22.01.1998. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 03.02.1999. Notices have been issued to the land owners under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act to appear for the award enquiry. 3.The award enquiry was conducted on 10.01.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer, in Award No.5/B/1999-2000, dated 10.01.2000, has fixed the valuation for the lands situated in Survey Nos.702/1 and 702/2 with an extent of 0.02.5 hectares and 0.62.5 hectares, in Paruvadanaalli Village, Ponnagaram Circle, Dharmapuri District...
Tag this Judgment!Kulanchi Ammal and anr. Vs. Jaishankar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
JUDGEMENT1. The unsuccessful defendants before the First Appellate Court are the appellants herein in the Second Appeal.2. One Periyanayagi Ammal, was the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur. She filed the suit for partition of her half share in the suit property and for other reliefs. It was her case that the suit property originally belonged to her husband-Danaraj Padayachi, and he died leaving behind herself and three sons by name Murugesan, Kanappan and Chakkravathi, as his legal heirs. Originally, the suit property was allotted to the son Chakravathi, who was the husband of the first appellant. The said Chakravathi, died in the year 1988, leaving behind first appellant and the plaintiff, as his legal heirs and in the suit property, the first appellant and the deceased/plaintiff had claimed share and therefore, the deceased/plaintiff was entitled to the undivided half share in the suit property. The first appellant sold the property to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Vs. Svnr Exports, 3c, Jvl Towers and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
JUDGEMENT1. This suit has been filed to pass a Judgement and Decree for a sum of Rs.6,94,461/- with interest at 20% p.a. on Rs.4,73,494.46/- from this date till date of payment and for a sum of Rs.18,35,915.07/- towards damages suffered by the Plaintiff on account of breach of contract by the Defendants and for costs.2. The plaint averments are as follows:-a. The Plaintiff Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 is carrying on the business of leather exports. The 1st Defendant is a Partnership Firm and the Defendants 2 and 3 are its partners. The 1st Defendant approached the Plaintiff in January 1991 and expressed its willingness to procure leather garments to be exported by the Plaintiff. This arrangement was understood to be on back-to-back basis, that is, the orders to be secured by the 1st Defendant Firm would in turn be based on export orders finalised by the Plaintiff. Based on the assurance of the 1st Defendant of supply of quality leather garments, the Plainti...
Tag this Judgment!A.N.Arunachalam Vs. T.Sivaprakasam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2006 in O.S.No.16 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.IV, Bhavani, Erode District.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:(a) The plaintiff is the tenant under the defendants in the suit properties for the past six years. The rent paid finally per month is Rs.1,100/-. The defendants are the owners of the suit properties. The defendants, due to their monetary crisis, entered into a sale agreement on 1.9.1997 with one R.Rangasamy Mudaliar, and the sale price was fixed at Rs.2 lakhs, and the defendants received Rs.1,50,000/- as advance from the said R.Rangasamy Mudaliar. (b) The said Rangasamy Mudaliar died, due to which, his son Madheswaran could not execute the sale agreement. The said Madheswaran demanded the advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the defendants, and hence, the defendants approached the plaintiff-tenant for purchase of the properties. Therefore, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Operating Officer, Formerly Bpl Mobile Cellular Ltd. and Another ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties and praying to refund a sum of Rs.40/- and Rs.30, which has been wrongly deducted from the complainants account to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/-towards cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore, dt.20.09.2007 in COP.No.192/2005. After hearing the arguments of both parties, finally on 24.1.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The appellants are opposite parties before the District Forum. The complainant filed a complaint for ordering to pay Rs.4,00,000/- for deficiency of service towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. On the basis of enquiry against the opposite party, the District Forum allowed the complaint ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »