Chennai Court November 2011 Judgments
P.Nachimuthu and ors. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1.Even though, the interim applications are listed before me, by consent, the Writ Petitions themselves are taken up for the final hearing. 2.The core issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is as to whether the third respondent can be permitted to lay the transmission towers over a public cart track by providing dedicated transmission lines for the purpose of connecting it with the sub-station. Since the grievances of the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same against the same respondents, they have been taken up together and a common order is passed. 3.In order to decide the issues involved in these five Writ Petitions, the factual matrix surrounding the case requires a proper narration. 4.Heard Shri.V.Raghavachari and Shri.N.Subramanian, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Shri.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Shri.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent as well...
Tag this Judgment!Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees' Union And Anr. Vs. Union of India An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1.As the issue involved in the all the writ petitions are one and the same, the following common order is passed. 2.The first petitioner in the above writ petitions are the registered and recognized Union/Association representing various categories of employees, who are working in the third respondent establishment and the second petitioner in the above writ petitions are the members of the said Union. 3.It is the case of the employees, who are working under the third respondent establishment, that they have all along been in receipt of overtime allowances whenever they are detained for duty beyond the normal working hours of 48 hours in a week, and the said allowance has been calculated and computed by including all allowances admissible to the employees like House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, Transport Allowance, Small Family Allowance etc., as per the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, since the third respondent factory is governed by the said Act. It is also the...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanasundaram Vs. the Management and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.08.2010 passed in W.P.No.17589 of 2001, whereby the learned Judge remitted the matter back to the Labour Court, Cuddalore for fresh disposal of the I.D.No.108 of 1993, with certain directions. 2. The appellant herein was working as a Driver in the 1st respondent - Transport Corporation. On 05.10.1986 the vehicle driven by the appellant met with an accident killing a pedestrian. In respect of the said accident, he was issued with a charge memo. As he denied the charge levelled against him, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Enquiry Officer in his report found the appellant guilty of the charge levelled against him. Based on the Enquiry Report he was terminated from service with effect from 07.10.1993. Challenging the Enquiry Report he raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.108/1993 before the Labour Court, Cuddalore. In the Claim Petition he claimed that he was not negligent in driving...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Savarirajan Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 made in A.S.No.170 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Valliyur, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.197 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Valliyur. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title and for injunction in respect of the suit property as against the Government by contending as though the land was acquired, but no notification was made under the Land Acquisition Act and holus bolus without adhering to any provisions of law, simply came to the suit property and attempted to divide the property into plots. 4. Whereas the defendant resisted the suit by filing the writ...
Tag this Judgment!R.Appunatesan Vs. the Chief Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the conferment of Kalpana Chawla Award on the fifth respondent herein, by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 2008. 2. I have heard Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 3. By G.O.Ms.No.160, Public (General) Department, dated 7.2.2003, the Government of Tamil Nadu instituted an Award in the name of Ms.Kalpana Chawla, the first Indian born woman Astronomer, who died while on her second mission in a space shuttle. The Award is conferred in the form of a medal along with a cash Certificate of Rs.5 lakhs and it is presented every year on the occasion of the Independence Day. 4. By G.O.Ms.No.791, Public Department, dated 4.8.2003, the Government issued a set of rules and guidelines to be followed for the selection of candidate for the conferment of the Award. The rules are known as “Rules for the Award of the Kalpana Chawla Award for Courage and Daring Enterprise”. The Awardee was t...
Tag this Judgment!i.Arulanandam Vs. the Director of Rural Development and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order of the third respondent, the District Project Manager, Vazhndhukattuvom Project, Tirunelveli District, dated 30.01.2009 and seeks to set aside the same. 2. When the writ petition came up on 30.07.2009, notice of motion was ordered. At that time, no interim order was passed by this Court though an application in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2009 was filed to that effect. After 8 months of the notice of motion, the learned Judge of this Court (N.Kirubakaran,J) by an order dated 29.04.2010 held that the affidavit filed by the respondent cannot improve the impugned order as it had been passed without reasons. Therefore, the order of termination was stayed and the main writ petition was directed to be posted on 12.07.2010. 3. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.11.2009 together with supporting documents in the form of a typed set. 4. It is seen from the records that the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Bir Singh Bedi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. The petitioner, a Judicial Member of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, is challenging the appointment of the fourth respondent/Mr.P.Mohanarajan as Vice President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT in short) in these writ proceedings. 2. The petitioner would contend that the high level Selection Committee has been misguided by the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs in short) of all the eligible candidates placed before it. According to the petitioner, the third respondent/President of the ITAT has no right or authority to write Annual Confidential Reports of the Members and the first respondent cannot act like a reviewing authority. The petitioner, without prejudice to the above contention, would further contend that the ACRs were not liable to be taken into account, unless they had been communicated to the concerned officers, their representations obtained and considered by the competent authority, in terms of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Dev Du...
Tag this Judgment!N.Ramakrishnan Vs. Disciplinary Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. The appellant, who is a Chartered Accountant, was initially appointed as an Officer in the respondent Bank in the year 1972 and later on rose upto the level of Senior Manager Grade Scale IV. While he was working as Chief Manager of Janpath Branch, New Delhi, from March 1988 to May, 1990, on the allegation that he opened number of automatic revolving letters of credit under various accounts of Indodan Industries and Foremost Industries without any reinstatement clause and other such irregularities, he was issued with a charge memo. on 10.1.1991 with charge Nos.1 to 3. Thereafter, on 6.5.1991, additional charges were also framed against him as Charge Nos.4 to 7. For easy reference, all the charges framed against the appellant are extracted hereunder: “CHARGE No.1: Mr.N.Ramakrishnan, Chief Manager, while working as Chief Manager, Janpath during the years 1989 and 1990 opened number of revolving letter of credits (L.Cs) in various accounts of Indana Grou...
Tag this Judgment!C.Dhanalakshmi Vs. the Chairman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent dated 4.9.2002, by which, the second respondent has rejected the petitioner's representation claiming compensation for the death of her husband due to electrocution, which occurred due to the negligent conduct of the Electricity Department in not maintaining the electricity system properly. The petitioner's representation was rejected on the ground that it is the voluntary conduct of the husband of the petitioner in touching the live wire, which resulted in the electrocution, and further, it is the case of the second respondent, as it is seen from the impugned order that it is the 'act of God'. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner's husband late Chandran, who was 30 years old at the time of his death, was a cultivating tenant in respect of the lands belonging to Pallivasal in Meyyanendal Village, Sivagangai District. On a heavy rainy day, namey, on 3.5.2...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Officer Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. The petitioner is the Special Officer of Arunmanai Milk Producers Co- operative Society Limited. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the first respondent, Labour Court, Tirunelveli in C.P.No.247 of 1993, dated 23.02.2004. 2. By the impugned order, the Labour Court, computed a sum of Rs.1,52,751/- as due and payable to the second respondent workman. 3. When the writ petition came up on 09.03.2007, this Court ordered notice of motion and pending notice of motion, this Court also granted an interim injunction restraining the third respondent, Tahsildar, Vilvancodu Taluk, from taking any steps to recover the interest amount of Rs.96,615/-. In the application for interim stay of the impugned order, only notice was ordered. 4. In the meanwhile, the workman filed an application for fixing an early date in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2008 and no orders were passed in that petition. 5. The facts leading to the case are as follows:- The second respondent was employed as a catt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »