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.
Management Vs. the Labour Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. The management of the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Bank Ltd., at Maniyatchi has filed the present writ petition. This is a second time, the petitioner society is before this Court.2.It transpires that the second respondent was employed as Cashier in the petitioner's PACB filed a C.P.No.159 of 2001 before the Labour Court claiming salary for the period from 01.07.1997 on the basis that the second respondent belongs to 'B' category and that the second respondent though was working as cashier was computed only the salary of Junior clerk. Since the bank had crossed one Crore turn over it should be treated as 'A' class bank and instead of paying the salary applicable to the 5th grade, he was paid salary only for the third grade of the junior clerk. Hence, he has claimed a sum of Rs.95,368/-. The said claim petition was ordered in favour of the second respondent by order dated 08.10.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the bank filed W.P.No.4539 of 2008 before this Court.3.In the writ p...
Rajendran Vs. Jeyapackiyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original plaintiffs animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2008, passed in A.S.No.63 of 2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi in confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2005, passed in O.S.No.629 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Thoothukudi.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. The whole hit and caboodle of facts giving rising to the filing of the Second Appeal as stood exposited from the records would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property as against the defendant No.1. During the pendency of the suit, D2 was wrongly impleaded.4. D1 filed the written statement as well as additional written statement resisting the suit contending that the plaintiff had no title to the suit property whereas he acq...
The Executive Engineer Vs. the Inspector of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. The Writ Petition is filed by the Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, Maintenance Division, challenging an order passed by the first respondent, the Inspector of Labour, Theni, dated 29.06.2006, granting conferment status in respect of respondents 2 to 9.2. When the Writ Petition came up on 16.11.2006, this Court ordered notice of motion and granted an order of interim stay for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, the interim stay was extended from time to time and on 26.04.2007, it was extended until further orders. Since the original counsel appearing for the petitioners informed that she is no longer the counsel, the name of Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, who is the Standing Counsel for the TWAD Board, was directed to be printed in the cause-list. Accordingly, the name of Mr.M.Ajmal Khan was printed and appeared in the cause-list.3. The contention raised by the petitioners Board was that the order passed by the first respondent was without jurisdiction and that the Board is not covered by the pro...
The General Manager Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. The petitioner is the management of the Sivagangai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union represented by the General Manager. In this writ petition, they have challenged an order of the first respondent authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (Act 43 of 1981) made in P.U.No.4 of 2007 dated 13.11.2007.2. By the impugned order, the first respondent computed a sum of Rs.1,01,962/- due and payable to the second respondent. The amount comprised of the subsistence allowance payable to the second respondent for the period from 27.07.2001 to 24.10.2001 at the rate of 50% and the last draw wages being Rs.5,900/-. The second period is from 25.10.2001 to 22.01.2002 at the rate of 75% and thereafter, the third period is from from 23.01.2002 to 27.09.2004 at the rate of 100% till the date of filing of the application. The authority took into account the amount of allowance paid already to the workman to the tune of Rs.1,12,700/- and computed only ...
The Branch Manager, American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. V.R. Krishnakumar
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(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 pay Rs.2,25,000/- in addition with interest. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.01.2009 in C.C.174/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.10.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and respondent in person and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following orderJ M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent/complainant, who was holding a Proprietary Company called Central Processor Global Inc. Slofter availed the mercantile banking service, having Current Account in the opposite party bank. On 30.04.2004, maintaining the balance of Rs.40,372.63 to Rs.41,372.63 between 30.04.20...
M/S.D.Cube Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. V.M. Ravindra and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
(This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 01.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the Petitioner and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This petition aims to condone the delay of 1889 days in filing the appeal against the order of the District Forum in C.C.171/2003, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, dated 25.07.2005. 2. The respondents herein as complainants filed a case, based upon an agreement, alleging deficiency, seeking a direction to hand over and give possession of the flats, after fully completing the construction, with further direction, seeking for compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for mental agony, based upon deficiency in service on various grounds, which we are not now concerned for the disposal of this petition. 3. In the complaint, the opposite party/petitioner herein was described as M/s. D-Cube Constructions (P) ...
V.Dharmalingam Vs. the Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Lecturer coming under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service. The petitioner completed his M.A. And M.Phil. in Tamil. He had also passed out the National Eligibility Test conducted by the University Grants Commission. He had registered himself for doing Ph.D. in Tamil in National College affiliated to Bharathidasan University.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Teachers' Recruitment Board called for applications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors coming under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for the year 2010. The petitioner also applied for the said post. However, the petitioner found that subsequent to the notification, the State Government had given directives as to how the selection should be made. Even in the advertisement issued by the Teachers' Recruitment Board, dated 29.03.2010, in column No.11 of the prospectus, the scheme of selection has been notified, pursuant to the Gove...
Kannamma Vs. Eswaran Alias Selvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2010 made in A.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2009 made in O.S.No.216 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram.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 and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:The plaintiff who is the respondent herein filed the suit for injunction in respect of the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint.4. The defendant/appellant herein filed the written statement resisting the suit.5. Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues. However, there was no participation in the trial on behalf of the defendant.6. During trial, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were ...
A.Jeevamathi Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. H.C.P.(MD)No.505 of 2010 had been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 therein, to produce the detenu, namely Yuvaraj, son of the petitioner, before this Court, and to set him at liberty.2.H.C.P.(MD)No.607 of 2010 had been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the first respondent therein to produce the detenue, namely Sittu Kala, aged 23 years, daughter of the petitioner, said to be in the illegal custody of Respondent Nos.2 to 4, before this Court and to set her at liberty.3.H.C.P.(MD)No.639 of 2010 had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the first and the second respondents to produce Raju, aged about 32 years, the husband of the petitioner, from the illegal custody of respondents 3 to 5 therein, before this Court, and to set him at liberty.4.Since, common issues have arisen for the decision of this Court in these Habeas Corpus Petitions, they are taken up together for passing a common order.5.Le...
Alageswari Vs. Athimuthu Manoharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original Plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003, passed in A.S.No.14 of 2002 by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi in confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2001, passed in O.S.No.319 of 1997 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Second Appeal as stood exposited from the records would run thus:The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the suit agreement to sell dated 20.12.1995, which emerged between D1, the Power Agent of D2 and the plaintiff.4. The 1st defendant filed written statement, supporting the case of the plaintiff.5. The 2nd defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit on the ground that the agreement to sell is an anti-dated document, which emerged after...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »