Chennai Court January 2011 Judgments
Dr.Ambedkar Mpt and anr. Vs. the Chairman Chennai Port Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent to forthwith extend the benefit of the judgment in W.P.No.6635/2005 etc., dated 09.07.2010 to the members of the petitioner union, who are the remaining employees of Madras Dock Labour Board and also similarly placed persons in W.P.6635/2005 etc.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the employees of the MDLB, who were employees under the Madras Dock Labour Board, got merged with the Chennai Port Trust in pursuance of the agreement dated 25.05.2001. After the merger took place, the employees of the MDLB had also reached the age of superannuation and even after their retirement on reaching the age of superannuation, at the time of calculating the gratuity, the piece rate earnings was not taken into account. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to calculate the proper piece rate earnings on th...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.Naseema Parveen Vs. the Director and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner herein-S.M.Naseema Parveen, by filing this writ petition, seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to allot to her a seat in B.Ed. Tamil Course in the Government College of Women at Coimbatore for the academic year 2010-2011.2. Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, points out that the petitioner, who belongs to Backward Community (Muslim) with graduation in B.A. Tamil, applied for B.Ed (Tamil) Degree Course for the year 2010-11 and the selection was by Single Window System based on counselling in the order of rank and communal reservations. The petitioner, a native of Coimbatore, opted for admission in the Government College of Education at Coimbatore, which was allotted, in total, 120 seats for various subjects, out of which, 10 seats were earmarked for B.Ed Tamil. Learned counsel further points out that the petitioner, who obtained 85.769 marks and was called upon, by intimation dated 17.08.2010, to a...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2007 made in W.P.No.5863 of 2005, wherein the challenge made by the appellant to the orders of the respondents 1 and 2 dated 06.01.2005 and 28.01.2005 respectively, thereby rejecting his request for regularisation from the date of his initial appointment, was negatived.2. It brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal, are as follows:-(a) The appellant is a Ceylon Repatriate, born in Colombo and repatriated to India in the year 1969, based on Srimavo Bandaranayaka Agreement entered between India and Colombo during the year 1964. The appellant, who is an Arts Graduate, came to India, registered his name in the employment exchange, and thereafter, he submitted a petition to the Director of Employment and Training, Chepauk, Chennai, for employment. (b) The Government of Tamil Nadu, as per G.O.Ms.No.1223, Public Services-A Department, dated 25.06.1965, has issued instructions to appoint repatriates ...
Tag this Judgment!V.M.Sivaraj Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the order of the third respondent dated 30.6.2001, insofar as it relates to withholding the petitioner's terminal benefits and also the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operatives, Vellore dated 29.5.2003, as confirmed by the order of the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, Vellore by order dated 11.10.2004, by which the petitioner and others were made jointly and severally liable to the third respondent/Bank to the extent of ` 11,07,050/- with interest at the rate of 18% from 27.2.2003 in surcharge proceedings initiated against them under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (for brevity, "the Act"). 2.1. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Administrative Officer (Non Agricultural Loan) between 3.11.1994 and 23.7.1995 in the third respondent/Bank. On an application made by one Om Sakthi Brick Works on 8.5.1995 to the Special Officer of the third respondent/Bank, the petitioner was directed to conduct p...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.Thiagarajan and anr. Vs. the Collector Sivagangai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
COMMON ORDER1. The petitioner in W.P.No.45933 of 2006 was working as a Zonal Deputy Collector in the Taluk Office at Thiruppathur. He filed O.A.No.7574 of 2000 challenging the order of the respondent District Collector, Sivagangai, dated 16.8.2000, wherein and by which he was imposed with a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The said Original Application was admitted on 19.10.2000. Though the petitioner sought for an interim order, the Tribunal did not grant any interim order. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent District Collector has filed a reply affidavit dated 27.2.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.45933 of 2006.2. The petitioner in W.P.45191 of 2006 was an Assistant working in the same office. By an identical order, he was also imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect for the very same incident for w...
Tag this Judgment!P. Lakshmanan and anr. Vs. P. Arumugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
C O M M O N J U D G E M E N T1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.2514 of 1993 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore are the appellants.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction stating that the suit property and other properties belonged to the 4th defendant ancestrally and the total extent of the properties owned by the family was an extent of 60 x 90 feet and thereafter there was a partition in the family and in that partition the 1st plaintiff was allotted an extent of 60 x 30 feet of property and the 1st plaintiff constructed a house in that property and is enjoying the same. As the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs right to the suit property, the suit was filed for injunction.3. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a statement denying the oral partition and also the enjoyment of the property by the 1st plaintiff. The 4th defendant also filed the separate statement stating that the property is his self acquired property and the 1st plaintiff can...
Tag this Judgment!Mary and ors. Vs. Vasanthakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 09.06.2010 passed in A.S.No.58 of 2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamalle in O.S.No.1683 of 1988. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus: (a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:"(a) For recovery of possession of vacant suit property after removal of the thatched superstructure illegally put up by the defendant. (b) For costs of the suit."(extracted as such)(b) The defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit.(c) Whereupon issues were framed.(d) On the side of the plaintiff, one Mr.Subramani was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the s...
Tag this Judgment!Sologuard Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned demand of the vide the communication in ref. third respondent comprised in its Lr.No.SE/CEDC/AO/HT/AS/A.3/F.Pk.Hr.Penalty 388/D.834/10, dated 23.11.2010 on the alleged account of charges for excess energy consumption exceeding the quota fixed for the months of December 2008 to May 2010 and consequential demand of the 2nd respondent by including 1/3rd of such demand being Rs.5,64,941/- in the petitioner's monthly CC bill for December 2010 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.2. Mr.A.Selvendran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 23.11.2010 wherein a demand was made as penal charges for exceeding the quota during the evening peak hours. The operative portion of the demand is as follows:- " You are requested ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary the Coimbatore Vasavi Trust Vs. K.Karuppasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondents 1 to 10 by setting aside the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.357, Revenue (Land Reforms II (3) Department, dated 30.04.1998 by which the application filed by the appellant was allowed granting permission to hold an extent of 20.58 < acres of land.2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:i.The appellant herein is a Trust created by a registered deed dated 03.12.1984. It acquired an extent of 20.58 < acres of land in Kurudampalayam Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, through various sale deeds between 1985 and 1987. Proceedings have been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Coimbatore, by issuing a notice under section 20-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1958 of 1961') as amended...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Cotton Mills and anr. Vs. the Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Heard Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Paramasivam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent ESI Corporation, Mr.F.B.Benjamin George for the 2nd respondent Bank and Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel for M/s.T.S.Gopanan & Co., for the 3rd respondent/National Textile Corporation.2. In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioners are M/s.Swadeshi Cotton Mills and Bharathi mills, which are the units of Swadeshee-Bharathee Textile Mills Ltd., a Government of Puducherry Undertaking. In the first Writ Petition, the challenge is to the recovery order dated 5.6.2006, wherein the 1st respondent ESI Corporation demanded payment of interest and cost. In the 2nd Writ Petition, similar demand of interest and cost was made by order dated 5.6.2006.3. In both the Writ Petitions, Notice of Motion was ordered on 13.6.2006. Pending Notice of Motion, an interim stay was granted initially for a limited period, which was subsequently extended from time to time.4. On notice fr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »