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 Inspector of Police Vs. K.C.Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. An important question relating to the conflict between the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution which an accused possesses and the larger societal interest in effecting crime detection is involved in this Criminal Original Petition. 2. Challenge in this Criminal Original Petition is to the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011, declining to authorize the detention of the respondent herein in police custody during the initial period of 15 days of remand. 3. The respondent herein is an accused in Crime No.267 of 2011 for offences under Sections 147, 353, 506(i) IPC r/w 3(1) of PPDL Act 1992 and 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. He was formally arrested on 01.10.2011 by the police, and thereafter, produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Karur, with a request for remand on the...
The Director Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. These two writ petitions were filed by the Director, Central Electrochemical Research Institute, Karaikudi (in Short CERI). 2. In the first writ petition challenge is to the order, dated 22.07.2011 passed under Section 7(A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act). By the impugned order, the petitioner's institute was directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,08,816.70/- towards the payment in favour of the employees engaged by M/s.Alagappapuram Labour Contract Cooperative Society, Karaikudi, the third respondent in W.P.(MD).No.8498 of 2011 for the period from 5/1989 to 2/1998, within 7 days, failing which they are liable to be proceeded with execution proceedings and they also liable to pay damages under Section 14-B of the Act and interest under Section 7-Q of the Act. 3. In the second writ petition, the challenge is under order dated 22.07.2011. This also passed under Section 7-A of the Act in respect of similar payment for t...
Sundaram Textiles Ltd Vs. the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner is the management, has come forward to challenge the common order passed by the Labour Court, dated 13.06.2011 in I.D.Nos.25, 26, 27, and 28 of 2010. By the impugned order, the Labour Court held that the dispute raised by the contesting respondent workmen under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, is maintainable as an industrial dispute and rejected the preliminary objection raised by the management. Challenging the preliminary order, even during the pendency of that issue, the writ petitions came to be filed.2.When the matter came up on 06.09.2011, this Court gave an interim direction not to proceed further beyond examination of the witnesses. The writ petitions are yet to be admitted and notice are yet to be served on the respondents.3.It is seen from the records produced by the petitioner that the contesting respondents were appointed by the petitioner textile mill on probation on various dates. Subsequently, it transpires that ...
The Managing Director Vs. C. Rengiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The above appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, against the decree and judgment dated 23.08.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.227 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate) Pudukkottai, awarded a compensation a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 08.06.1996 at about 07.30 p.m., when the (deceased) Nallammal was boarding the town bus bearing route No.25, at Pudukkottai, New Bus Stand, the 1st respondent's driver, without giving any signal, took the bus in reverse all of a sudden in a rash and negligent manner. Due to this, the (deceased) Nallammal fell down and sustained injuries. She was immediately taken to Pudukottai Government Hospital, but died on the same night. Hence, the petitioners, who are the legal he...
Arasu Pokuvarathu Madurai Thozhilalar Sangam. Vs. the Management of Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The writ petitions are filed by two trade unions namely, Arasu Pokuvarathu Madurai Thozhilalar Sangam and Thamizhaka Arasu Pokuvarathu Madurai Thozhilalar Sangam, Nagerocil represented by its respective General Secretaries. 2.The grievance of the trade unions was that instead of promoting the conductors who are senior enough to become supervisors, the Corporation recruiting the people from outside. 3.The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.6605 of 2007 was admitted on 07.08.2007. In W.P.(MD)No.6658 of 2008, notice of motion was ordered on 29.07.2008. In both the writ petitions, this Court granted interim direction, dated 07.08.2007. The direction was issued to the effect that the respondent corporation who employed the conductors as traffic supervisors based on their seniority as an interim measure till the regular posts of traffic supervisors are appointed. Similarly, restraint was made on the respondents from employing the junior drivers/conductors as supervisors inside the depots of the ...
R. Dhanapal Vs. Appollo Hospital (P) Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman and An ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Appellant/Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and costs for the alleged negligence in giving treatment to the complainant by the opposite parties. 3. Brief details of the complaint are as follows:- Complainant had consulted the 1st opposite party for his complaint of low back pain and hip pain and he was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital on 5.12.97. After investigation it was diagnosed as DORSAL CORD COMPRESSION T9-10 AND T10-11 VERTEBRAL LEVEL WITH PPRP; Based on the diagnosis, the 2nd opposite party performed the surgery on the complainant and he was discharged on 16.12....
L. Jayarama Reddi and Another Vs. Gromore Bio-tech Ltd. and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
(Both the appeals coming before us for hearing finally on 19.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.79/2008 Complainant is the appellant. F.A.No. 553/2008 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for payment of compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- together with interest and Rs.3,000/- as costs for the damages caused to the crops because of deficiency of service by opposite parties. 3. Complainant purchased 1000 Plantains saplings on 25.3.03 from 2nd opposite party to raise plantain garden in his land by payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs and another Rs.5,000/- was given as subsidiary and the plantain saplings were supplied through the 1st opposite party. The complainant spent for the plantain garden Rs.1,24,755/- in all under various expe...
Manicam Narayanan, Proprietor Vs. M/S. Gurudev Motors Pvt. Ltd., Rep. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
(This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 19.09.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order.) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.18,42,554/- being the value of car with 24% interest from 10.8.08 and Rs.5,00,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service with interest and for costs. 2. The gist of the complaint in brief as follows :- Complainant purchased a Scoda Laura car bearing registration No.TN 07-BZ-3393 from the opposite party and suddenly met with an accident due to an unexpected run over on the platform on 10.6.08 and immediately left the car for repair to the opposite party with a request to return the car after service not l...
S.Selvakumar Vs. Nagarani Chitfunds (Pvt.)ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 05.02.2009, made in the unnumbered interlocutory application, in E.P.No.50 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppathur.2. The petitioner had filed the unnumbered interlocutory application, as a third party, under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to set aside the sale, dated 18.2.2008, stating that he is a bona fide purchaser of the property in question. It has been stated that the petitioner had purchased the schedule property, from the second respondent, on 18.2.2008, for valuable consideration. The first respondent/decree holder had obtained an Award No.182 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karaikudi. He had filed an Execution Petition No.50 of 2007 against the second and the third respondents, for attachment and sale of the schedule property. The schedule property had been attached and it had been sold in a public auction. The f...
A.innasimuthu Vs. the Accountant General and Pension Verification Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. The petitioner A.Innasimuthu has presented a present Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay his pension on the basis of the proposal forwarded by the fourth respondent dated 06.08.2009 in R.C.No.1638/2008. 2. Heard Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Alagadevan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The matter was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was retired from service in the year 2008. But after his retirement, though the Pension papers were sent by the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District and in turn, he forwarded the proposal to the first respondent, Accountant General and Pension Verification Officer (A&E), Thenampet, the first respondent till date has not sanctioned the pension. As a result, the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »