Chennai Court October 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.
The Special Officer Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. The matter arises under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner is the Management of Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., represented by its Special Officer. In this Writ Petition, they have sought to challenge an order passed by the first respondent (Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act), Joint Commissioner of Labour, Trichy in P.G.A.NO.316 of 2010, dated 06.01.2011. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-Society, challenging an order passed by the second respondent (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act), Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, made in P.G.No.1/2009. Aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate Authority, the Writ Petition came to be filed. 2. When the matter came up on 08.03.2011, this Court ordered notice regarding admission. Pending the notice, an interim stay was granted, which was subsequently extended. Aggrieved by the grant of stay, the third respondent has filed M.P.(MD)No.2 ...
S.Arokia Jency Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the fifth respondent as a Panchayat Clerk. According to the petitioner, the third respondent (who is also named as fourth respondent in his individual capacity) has forged the resolution of the Madoor Village Panchayat and appointed the fifth respondent. In view of the said forged appointment, even the village people aggrieved and have sent complaints and therefore, he has come forward with the present writ petition seeking to set aside the resolution of the panchayat, dated 15.10.210 and after setting aside the consequential appointment of the fifth respondent seeks for a direction to appoint him as panchayat clerk in the third respondent panchayat. 2.When the matter came up on 27.06.2011, this Court private notice directed to be issued to the respondents. Accordingly, notices have been served on all the respondents and for the fifth respondent counsel appears. 3.It is not clear as to how the present writ petition is maintainable es...
D.Kathiravan Vs. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, dated 12.02.2007. By the impugned order, the University addressed the second respondent College that their proposal sent for verifying the qualification of the petitioner as being suitable for holding the post of Lecturer in the department of Economics was not complied with. It was further informed that the petitioner's M.Phil dissertation was not in the subject relating to Economics. The letter addressed to the Secretary was also marked to the Principal of the College. The petitioner, unmindful of the existence of the letter, filed a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P.(MD)No.1261 of 2007, seeking for a direction to grant approval to the petitioner's qualification to hold the post of Lecturer in Economics in the College by treating the petitioner's M.Phil degree in education as inter-disciplinary. In that Writ Petition, noti...
A.Murugesan Vs. the District Employment Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to register his name under the M.B.C. priority category for any public employment as per the qualification and to sponsor his name for any public employment, for which, names may be called for from the District Employment Officer, Ramanathapuram, the first respondent herein. 2. When the matter came up on 19.07.2010, notice of motion was ordered. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for amendment and brought on record the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District as the second respondent. Accordingly, the cause title stood modified by an order dated 20.04.2011. On notice, the respondents were appeared. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's mother Karuppaiammal, a resident of Seyyalur Village in Paramakudi Taluk, gave a land for acquisition for the purpose of assigning house sites for the Adi-dravidar community people to the extent of 0.25.0 hecta...
S.Arockia Samy Vs. the Chief Educational Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by S.Arockia Samy for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in R.C.No.3533/A4/2008, dated 20.09.2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and consequently direct the first respondent to refund Rs.2,958/- as deducted from his salary. 2. Mr.P.Sathish Murugan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had completed B.Sc., in rural development studies and Bachelor decree in physical education. He was originally appointed as Secondary Grade Physical Education Teacher in Assumption Aided Higher Secondary School, Chennai. He was paid incentive increment by the Assumption Aided Higher Secondary School till 16.03.1998. Thereafter, he was relieved from the said school and appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 17.03.1998 in the Government Higher Secondary School, Batlagundu. Now, the petitioner is continuousl...
G.Srinivasan Vs. the Additional Director of Technical Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. The petitioner is working as Assistant in the third respondent Polytechnic which is a private polytechnic governed by the Grant in aid Code given by the State Government and it is under the grant in aid, the authority is the Director of Technical Education.2.In W.P.(MD)No.2580 of 2011, the petitioner challenges an order of suspension, dated 22.09.2010. The suspension was issued by the third respondent Principal for alleged disobedience of the instructions given by the superiors and also behaving in a dishonoured manner in spite of advice being tendered, the suspension was made pending enquiry.3.Challenging the suspension, the petitioner filed the above writ petition. Notice of motion was ordered in the writ petition on 04.03.2011 and in the applications for interim stay and interim direction, no orders were passed by this Court. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 30.03.2011. Even during the pendency of the said writ petition, it tran...
Gandhi Vs. the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. It is very unfortunate case where by the act of the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent, an Industrial Dispute relating to non employment for the petitioner has been kept pending for the last 14 years, without reaching any finality. 2.Curiously, in this Writ petition, the petitioner, who is the workman, has come forward to challenge an order passed in an interim application in I.A.No.59 of 2007 in I.D.No.27 of 1997 dated 21.10.2008. 3.By the impugned order, the first respondent / Labour Court, Madurai had received additional counter statement filed by the management. Even though it was filed belatedly after a period 10 years, the Labour Court rejected the petitioner's objection stating that receiving such a written statement will cause prejudice and it should not be entertained. But, the Labour Court held that the matter has been kept pending for the last 10 years, without being heard and if the worker is so aggrieved, he can file a rejoinder to the additional counter statement...
S.Mareeswari Vs. the Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. The petitioner has come to this Court by filing this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to provide employment to the petitioner on the basis of the wards of the deceased by dispensing with the community certificate, no property and no employment certificates. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father was appointed as a Conductor in the second respondent Transport Corporation and after serving as a permanent Conductor for about 20 years, he died on 03.07.1995 due to illness leaving behind his wife, the petitioner and her sister with 80% disability. Unfortunately, the petitioner's mother also passed away in the month of October, 1996. When the petitioner's father died, the petitioner was aged 7 years old and studying in school. Under these circumstances, the petitioner and her sister were deserted and on seeing the plight of their state of affairs, one Mr.Balan @ Balasubramaniam, who is a ...
O.Manickam Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. The petitioner is working as the Village Administrative Officer in the Pannian group villages. He was also holding additional charge for the Karumathur village. In the present writ petition, he has come forward to challenge an order of transfer issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti namely, the second respondent herein, dated 25.05.2011. In the order of transfer, it was stated that the District Collector namely, the first respondent had received a complaint from the village people of Pannian group villages that while granting flood relief to the village people, the petitioner has committed irregularities. Therefore, the District Collector directed the second respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of the complaint. 2.In the light of the above, the second respondent passed the impugned order on public interest and administrative reasons transferring the petitioner from the existing village Pannian group villages and Karumathur village additional charge to Va...
The Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. M/ ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to Rs.4,40,000/- being the loss sustained by the complainant together with interest at 18% per annum, to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and hardship and to pay the costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order, as per the order of the District Forum dt.23.12.2008 in C.C.801/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsel and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. Factual matrix for the appreciation of the case as follows:- The complainant, who is carrying on the business of Marine Engineering, had taken a Marine Hull Poli...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »