Chennai Court November 2011 Judgments
Special Officer Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. The petitioner is the Special Officer of the Suthamalli Primary Agriculture Cooperative Bank Limited, Tirunelveli. In this writ petition he has come forward to challenge an order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act cum Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, in P.G.A.No.48 of 2005 dated 24.04.2006 in dismissing the appeal filed by them and confirming the order passed by the second respondent, namely the Assistant Commissioner of Labour cum Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in PG No.32 of 2002 dated 07.06.2004.2. On notice from this Court, the third respondent workman had entered appearance through his counsel.3. It is seen from the records that the third respondent who was employed as Secretary entered service on 19.07.1977. After rendering the service for 24 years he got retired on 30.06.2001. His last drawn monthly salary was Rs.8,500/- . He had reached the age of his superannuation on 12.06.2001. In normal circumstances a perso...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Parameswari Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. The petitioner is the husband of the detenu, by name Narayanasamy, S/o.Rengasamy Naicker, aged about 42 years, who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), on the orders of the second respondent, by his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.14 of 2011, dated 05.07.2011. Now, he has been lodged at Central Prison, Madurai.2. After the Detention Order was passed, the detenu made a representation to the Government on 09.07.2011 and the same was received by the Government on 15.07.2011, upon which remarks were called for from the Detaining Authority on 18.07.2011 and the remarks were received by the Government only on 22.07.2011. Thereafter, the said representation was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 22.07.2011 and the same was rejected by the Hon'ble Minister on 28.07.2011....
Tag this Judgment!S.Sekar Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu, by name Satheesh Kumar, aged 23 years, who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), on the orders of the second respondent, by his proceedings in P.D.No.09 of 2011, dated 20.05.2011. Now, he has been lodged at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.2. After the Detention Order was passed, the detenu made a representation to the Government on 08.06.2011 and the same was received by the Government on 13.06.2011, upon which remarks were called for from the Detaining Authority on 14.06.2011 and the remarks were received by the Government only on 22.06.2011. Admittedly, between 14.06.2011 and 22.06.2011, there had been a delay of eight days, out of which, two days are intervening holidays. Even if allowance is g...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Vishnuvardhan Paper Mills Pvt Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Superintending Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (third respondent) calling upon the petitioner to arrange to pay the dues of 3 sister concerns of the petitioner, which form the subject matter of the 3 writ petitions on the file of this Court, as a pre-condition for sanctioning an additional load to the petitioner.2. I have heard Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. Even at the time when the writ petition came up for admission, I directed the Standing Counsel for the respondent to take notice and make submissions, in view of the fact that there are no disputes on facts and that what falls for consideration is only a legal issue.4. The petitioner is having a sanctioned load of 1,000 KVA for their Mill. They made an application on 8.5.2011 for an additional load of 2,000 KVA. The third respond...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman and Managing Director. Vs. C.K.Namasivayam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. The Review Application arose out of the order passed by this Court in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 in W.P.(MD)No.8320 of 2006. The Review Application is filed by respondents 4 to 6 in the original Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2007, the Review Application came to be filed. Since the Review Application is directed only against an interim order passed by this Court, this Court directed the main Writ Petition itself to be listed along with the Review Application and accordingly, the main Writ Petition also was listed. The disposal of the main Writ Petition will also decide the fate of the Review Application. Therefore, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.2. One C.K.Namasivayam, S/o.Kanniah Chettiar filed a Writ Petition with a prayer seeking for a direction to the respondents therein to re-convey the lands measuring 1 Acre and 9.25 cents comprised in Survey No.G-3-12/8 situated in Vadasery Village, Kanyakumari District, which were acquired by the State Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Maruthaiah Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, by name, S.Ramesh, S/o.Shanmugiah Karaiyalar, aged 34 years, who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), on the orders of the second respondent, by his proceedings in M.H.S.Confdl.No.36/2011, dated 16.07.2011. Now, he has been lodged at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.2. After the Detention Order was passed, the detenu made a representation to the Government on 19.07.2011 and the same was received by the Government on 27.07.2011, upon which remarks were called for from the Detaining Authority on 28.07.2011 and the remarks were received by the Government only on 04.08.2011. Admittedly, between 28.07.2011 and 04.08.2011, there had been a delay of seven days, out of which, two days are intervening hol...
Tag this Judgment!V. Marine Engineering Contractor, V. Marine Shipyard Vs. M/S. National ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
(This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 27.09.2011, 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 complaint claiming direction for payment of Rs.5,22,662.55 with 18% interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and for costs. 2. The Gist of the complaint in brief are as follows :- Complainant dealing Marine Engineering contract having insurance policy with the opposite party for the perils of vessels insured with the opposite party under policy No.500601/22/11/0007/98-99 dated 29.6.1998 regarding the fishing trawler FFV Southern challenger which was leased out to the complainant company and damaged on 7.9.98 during the process of docking...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner and anr. Vs. S. Nithyanantham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. The Appellants/Defendants have filed the present Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 11/8/2004 in A.S.No.123 of 2003 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Thanjavur in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 3/3/2003 in O.S.No.204 of 2002 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru.2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Thanjavur, while allowing the appeal in part, has among other things observed in the Judgment in A.S.No.123 of 2003 to the effect that as per Ex.A.3 letter dated 5/5/1998, the Appellants (Respondents/Defendants) has to pay a sum of Rs.26,912/- to the Respondent/Plaintiff in respect of the salary and ex-gratia arrears together with proportionate costs and three months time has been given for making the said payment, thereby, set aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.204 of 2002 dated 3/3/2003.3. Earlier, in the trial C...
Tag this Judgment!Thangasamy and anr. Vs. the Deputy Collector Cum Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. These two writ petitioners who are residents Nallan Chetti patti village, Sathur Taluk have come forward to challenge an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi (described as Deputy Collector cum Assistant Commissioner Excise in the cause title). By the impugned order dated 01.08.2006, the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer on receiving a complaint through village stating that in S.No.379 the Karuvelam trees (acasia) which is belonged to the State Government which was cut and removed and the District Collector received a telephone message and therefore, the Revenue Inspector, Sathur and the Village Administrative Officer were directed to spot inspection and on making spot inspection, a report was submitted to the Tahsildar, Sathur and he forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer by a covering letter dated 12.07.2006. The Revenue Officials also received a petition from the village people with reference to the felling of Karuvelam trees. The inspec...
Tag this Judgment!.Nagasundaram Vs. Anitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is the husband. He has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge a notice issued by the second respondent, i.e. District Social Welfare Officer, Ramanathapuram, dated Nil (August, 2011) and signed by him on 23.08.2011 and seeks to set aside the same and with the consequential direction not to conduct any enquiry till the disposal of the proceedings initiated by him in the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram in HMOP No.38 of 2011.2.When the matter came up on 27.9.2011, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to take notice for the second respondent District Social Welfare Officer. A private notice was also ordered to the first respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent has been served and represented by her counsel.3.The case leading to filing of the present writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was married to the first respondent on 15.2.2009 at South Karaiyur, Ramanathapuram District. Subsequently, it was t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »