Chennai Court November 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.
S.EdwIn Vs. the Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. The petitioner, who was a provident fund subscriber and was working in Thiruchendur Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, Nazareth, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the communications sent by the Provident Fund Department, dated 18.03.2008 and 22.04.2008 and after setting aside the same, he seeks for a pensionary benefit which was already paid to him and he is also entitled for provisional pension under the Pension Pay Order No.16583.2. In the first communication dated 18.03.2008, the petitioner was informed that he enrolled himself in the PF Scheme on 01.09.1965 and ceased to be a member on 18.07.1994 by settlement of his account. During the tenure of his membership, at the relevant time, he did not opt to become a member under the Family Pension Scheme of 1971. He exercised his option for joining the Scheme only in March, 1996, after the settlement of his PF account and after cessation of membership of the EPF scheme. Based on the option, the pension was alr...
S.Pandiyan Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to produce the detenue, namely, Renuga Devi, aged about 22 years, before this Court, and to set her at liberty.2.Today, when the Habeas Corpus Petition has been listed for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even on the earlier occasions, i.e. on 07.07.2011 and 21.07.2011, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.3.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had stated the fourth respondent-Saravanan's wife, namely, Renuga Devi, the detenue herein, had gone away with one Prabhu and that they are living at Chennai.4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, had stated that a woman missing case had been registered, in Crime No.237 of 2011, on the file of the Chinnamanoor Police Station and further investigations are being carried on.5.In such circumstances, since, no f...
The Management Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. In all these four writ petitions, the petitioner is the management of Mahendravadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited represented by its Special Officer.2.The first writ petition challenges an order passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, the third respondent in C.P.No.8 of 2007, dated 8.3.2008. By the said order, the Labour Court had computed a sum of Rs.1,00,130/-, which was the salary due and payable from April, 2004 to January, 2007. The rate of wages was calculated at Rs.2,945/ per month. The said claim petition came to be filed pursuant to an ex parte Award made in I.D.No.71 of 2001, dated 20.11.2003. The petitioner even before filing C.P.No.8 of 2007, had earlier filed three other claim petitions and one payment of Wages application. The first one was C.P.No.10 of 2001, dated 8.5.2002, C.P.No.31 of 2001 was dated 8.5.2002 and C.P.No.32 of 2004 was dated 29.3.2006. His payment of wages application in P.W.No.18 of 2000 was dated 22.10.2001. In the writ petition, not...
The Management Vs. S.Radhakrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. The petitioner is the management of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Viswanatham, Virudhunagar District at Sivakasi. In this writ petition, they have challenged an order passed by the second respondent, the authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (Act No.43 of 1981).2. By the impugned order, the second respondent computed a sum of Rs.72,148/- as subsistence allowance due and payable from 11.02.2003 to 10.01.2005 for a period of 22 months at the rate of 100%. As against the said order, the writ petition came to be filed and admitted on 27.11.2008. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted only notice on the stay application.3. The contention of the petitioner was that the first respondent was dismissed by them vide order dated 01.04.2003, which was also produced before the authority as Ex.R1. It was sent by tapal, but was not received by the first respondent and it came back unserved. It was also marked as Ex.R2. The pr...
Ms.Ekambara Eswarar Coffee Works. Vs. Varambettran.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the instant Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31/3/2004 in A.S.No.17 of 1995 passed by the First Appellate Court viz., the Learned District Principal Judge, Tuticorin, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26/8/1992 in O.S.No.113 of 1983 passed by the Learned Sub-Judge, Tuticorin.2. THE PLAINT SCENARIO OF THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:- The Appellant/Plaintiff is a registered firm and doing business in manufacturing coconut oil under the trade name of 'Ravi Brand'. 30 tins of coconut oil of 'Ravi Brand' of 16 kilograms per tin were delivered to the Respondent/Defendant on 18/12/1979 at Tuticorin as per delivery note No.624593 along Bill No.690 for Rs.8,000/- for delivery to the Appellant/Plaintiff's sale depot at Thirumangalam. The lorry freight charges of Rs.22.50 was pre-paid.3. The goods were not delivered to the Appellant/Plaintiff's sales depot at Thirumangalam. Oral demands for delivery of goods in a good...
The Management Vs. the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. The writ petition is filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Co- operative Thrift Credit Society at Tirunelveli. In this writ petition, the petitioner society challenges an order of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli in C.P.No.26 of 2003, dated 28.08.2008.2.When the writ petition came up on 17.11.2009, this Court ordered notice of motion. Pending the notice of motion, no interim order was passed. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 29.10.2011, this Court found that the management of the petitioner society filed only a gist order made in C.P.No.26 of 2003 as the impugned order. It was pointed out by this Court that a gist order supplied by the Labour Court at free of cost pursuant to the Rule 54(2) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 will contain only the operative portion of the order and will not contain reasons for the order.3.When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel filed a copy of the order made by the Labour ...
S.Ramalingam Vs. the Additional Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. The petitioner by challenging the order of transfer, dated 31.10.2011 filed the present Writ Petition to quash the same with further direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue at the second respondent's office, namely, in the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Collector Office Complex, Virudhunagar District, who has been transferred from Virudhunagar District to Theni District.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the date of his appointment as Junior Assistant in the cadre of Depot Manager Grade- III(Security) from 1.9.1982, he faced nine transfers. The present impugned order is the 9th transfer order transferring the petitioner from Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District to Theni District.3. His only grievance placed before this Court is to interfere with the transfer order. He had no grievance to accept the transfer order had it been passed during the transfer period, namely April-May. But in view of the fact that...
S.Durgeshwaran Vs. the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. When the petitioner mentioned for extension of interim order, this Court was not inclined to grant extension of interim order and this Writ Petition is a clear abuse of process of law. The very same petitioner earlier filed Writ Petitions in W.P(MD).Nos.6174, 11472 and 1700 of 2008 before this Court, challenging the order demanding dues including the distraint proceedings initiated. All the three Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court stating that if the petitioner is aggrieved, the effective remedy by way of appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] before the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal alone is available and he cannot dispute before this Court regarding the partnership business liability as well as the status of the petitioner in the said partnership.2. Even though the order was made as early as on 06.10.2010, the petitioner moved the Division Bench with Writ Appeals in W.A.(M...
K.Balamurugan Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking for a direction, to produce the detenues viz., Kamala, aged about 32 years, wife of the petitioner and two minor sons viz., Rahul, aged about 8 years and Gokul aged about 4 years, sons of the petitioner, before this Court and to set them at liberty.2.When the matter was called, there is no representation for the petitioner.3.Heard Mr.A.Ramar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents.4.We have also perused the records.5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioner has given a complaint to the second respondent police on 08.05.2011, regarding the missing of the detenues and on that basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered in crime No.887 of 2011 on the file of the 2nd respondent police on 11.05.2011 and they are seriously investigating the case. He would further submit in his argument that the investigation would reveal t...
The General Manager Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. The petitioner is the Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producer's Union Limited represented by the General Manager. In this writ petition they have come forward to challenge an order passed by the Inspector of Factories, II Circle, Madurai, dated 30.08.2004.2. By the impugned order, the first respondent had directed the petitioner to confer the permanent status on the respondents 3 to 24 from the date on which they have completed 480 days of service within 24 calendar months.3. The writ petition was admitted on 24.04.2006. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay of the impugned order. On notice from this Court, the contesting respondents 3 to 24 have been served.4. It is seen from the records that the second respondent inspected the factory premises of the petitioner's management at Madurai. After conducting enquiry with the management, he found that number of workers were not made permanent and he gave a notice to the management. They gave a reply letter. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »