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.
R.K.V.Govindaraj Vs. V.Chellaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petitioner is the lorry transport operator. In the present writ petition, he has come forward to challenge an order passed by the third respondent, the appellate authority cum Joint Commissioner of Labour, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The said authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal in P.G.A.No.55 of 2008 and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent, the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in P.G.No.90 of 2007. Aggrieved by the two orders, the writ petition came to be filed.2. The writ petition was admitted on 06.05.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay.3. On notice from this Court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 05.07.2009 and also filed a copy of Ex.P2 filed before the controlling authority.3. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows: i) The first respondent filed a claim petition before the second respondent seeking p...
Bhagchand Uttamchand Vs. the Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.8741 and 9385 of 2011 have been filed by the first and second accused in Crime No.203 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal.2.The averments in the petitions are as follows:(i) The case has been registered against the petitioners/A1 & A2 and others under Crime No.203 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 387 and 420 I.P.C.(ii) The property bearing D.No.41/67, Welwyn inn Cottage, Kodaikanal town, Dindigul District, is originally belongs to one John Tapp and he bequeathed the property to his legal heirs by a will dated 09.10.1939 and the same was probated vide order dated 16.12.1941 in O.P.No.58 of 1941 on the file of the District Judge, Madurai.(iii) On 24.04.1989, the said property has been purchased by Bhagchand Uttamchand Galada/A1 and his other family members from the legal heirs of John Tapp vide registered sale deeds. The patta is also stands in their names.(iv) In the above said property, there were ...
M.Rajeswari Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petitioner is the workman in this writ petition has come forward to challenge the order passed by the first respondent, Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai cum-Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 made in P.G.A.No.3 of 2006, dated 04.04.2007 confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 04.07.2005 in P.G. Case No.10 of 1998 for different reasons. Having lost the claim for gratuity, the petitioner is before this Court.2. The writ petition was admitted on 08.01.2008. During the pendency of the proceedings, unfortunately, the petitioner passed away on 15.07.2009. It is stated that his legal representatives filed M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 to implead themselves as petitioners. Accordingly, the said application was ordered on 07.06.2010 and the legal heirs on record. On notice from this Court, the second respondent has entered appearance through counsel and no counter affidavit has been filed till date.3. It was the case of the original petitioner ...
K.Neelamegam Vs. the Director General National
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. Whether posing of a political repartee on the Twitter by a sitting Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir State can invite the wrath of the process of law at Madurai? and Whether the petitioner's complaint to the Inspector General of Police, South Zone should be wetted by inviting opinion of the Attorney General of India are the questions to be answered in this criminal original petition.2.This criminal original petition came to be posted on being specially ordered before this Court. Heard the counsels for all the parties.3.The petitioner claims to be a practicing Advocate in this High Court. He has filed the original petition seeking for a direction to get a legal opinion from the Attorney General of India / Advocate General of Tamil Nadu relatable to the locus standi of the criminal complaint dated 02.09.2011 on the file of the third respondent Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and to register a case according to law.4.When this criminal original petition was filed in ...
Art Industrial School Vs. the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petitioner is the management of one Art Industrial School having their office at Nazareth, Tuticorin District. In this Writ petition they have come forward to challenge an endorsement made by the 1st respondent / Labour Court, Tirunelveli on 17.09.2009 in C.P.No.30 of 2007. The endorsement reads as follows:In view of the memo filed by the respondent, respondent is directed to permit the petitioners to report for duty on 01.10.2009 in the same trades. Compliance by respondent by 05.10.2009.2.It is seen from the records that earlier a dispute was raised by the Industrial Estate Works Union, Tirunelveli in I.D.No.252 of 1981. The said dispute, which was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Madurai. The workmen's non employment was held to be invalid and they were directed to reinstated with backwages. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner / Management filed a Writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.2719 of 1993 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 06.06.2002 by co...
The General Manager Vs. Appellate Authority Under
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petitioner is a newspaper establishment covered by the provisions of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. The order of the first respondent, who is the appellate authority cum Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972confirming the order passed by the second respondent in computing unpaid gratuity in favour of the third respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The writ petition was admitted on 30.06.2010. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner got a direction to the second respondent not to disburse the amount of Rs.47,015/- deposited by the petitioner to the credit of G.A.No.11 of 2008 till the disposal of the writ petition. Though the third respondent filed an application in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 together with a supporting counter affidavit, dated 25.07.2011 for permission to withdraw 50% of the gratuity amount deposited, the said app...
Capt V.C.N. Kutty (Retd) Vs. Union of India, Rep by Secretary, Ministr ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. A retired Captain of the Indian Army, after rendering 6 years 11 months and 15 days of service released from Army service with effect from 19.04.1971 due to an injury sustained on 26.03.1965, has come forward with this application contending that he had submitted an application to the Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence, for pension, which was ordered on 07.07.1975 sanctioning pension to the applicant only for 327 days upto the date of injury and that after a very long correspondence, the respondents have issued an order dated 28.09.1999 reckoning the entire service of 7 years of the applicant for pension adding 9 years weightage to his service. Further, the 2nd respondent PCDA (P), Allahabad, by its order dated 08.01.2010 has observed that the service element of disability pension was notionally fixed from the date of commencement of pension i.e., from 19.04.1971 and that the pension will be calculated based on minimum of the pa...
M.Abdul Wahab Vs. Natarajan and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendants animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 made in A.S.No.93 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009 made in O.S.No.290 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Broadly, but briefly, narratively, but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the second appeal, would run thus:The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of easementary right in taking their sewage and sullage water from their respective houses through the well defined 'L' shaped canal in the defendants' plot to Arugankulam drainage canal which is situated to the east of the defendants' property, on the main ground that earlier there was one litigati...
Jainul Arabu Vs. Sungunan Alias Muthuramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs 2 to 5, 7 and 8 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2010 made in A.S.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2009 made in O.S.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi.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 summation and summarisation, avoiding discursive delineation, of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the second appeal, would run thus:The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title over the suit property and for injunction relating to it, on the main ground that by virtue of the two sale deeds viz., Exs.A.1 and A.2, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit property; whereas the defendants without any manner of right are trying to interf...
R.Alagar Samy Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. These writ petitions were filed by persons who are seeking employment under the Noon Meal Scheme coming under the department of Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme organized by the State Government. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners were seeking employment for candidates recommended by them and in some cases the challenge is to the appointment of the contesting respondents who were appointed contrary to the choice of the school management (minority or non minority) in the various centres attached to the schools concerned. Except W.P.(MD)No.2558 of 2010, in all cases the School management are the petitioners in the writ petitions. Pending the writ petitions, in some cases, there were interim orders granted. But in most of the cases, the contesting respondents are functioning in the Centres. In some cases, the department had appointed the respondents by transfer from some other centres.2.These writ petitions were grouped together and a reference was made to a division be...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »