Chennai Court December 2011 Judgments
M/S. Gmmco Limited Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 13.1.2011 passed by the 5th respondent/The District Collector, Kancheepuram District and the consequential order of the 11th respondent/The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram Division, Kancheepuram District dated 16.8.2011 and direct the respondents to act pursuant to the petitioner's application for patta transfer dated 31.12.2008. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as per the pleadings of the petitioner are as follows: (a) Petitioner is a Group of Company, involved in manufacturing activities including automobile and components, engineering products, building products, cement, castings, electrical pans, lighting products, etc., and it has turnover in excess of US$ 1.16 billions with human resources comprising of over 22,000 employees worldwide. (b) It is claimed in the affidavit that the petitioner purchased property measuring total extent of 67.14 grounds in R.S.NO.512, Contonment of St.Thomas ...
Tag this Judgment!K.Ramachandran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department during the year 1995-96 and his name was not included in the panel of the Assistant Executive Engineer for the year 1995-96 for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The reason for non inclusion of his name is that a charge memo dated 17.12.1994 issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was pending against him at that time. 2. The 17(b) proceedings resulted in imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect by an order in G.O.(2D) No.42, Public Works, dated 09.04.1997. The petitioner successfully challenged the same before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by an order dated 03.03.2000 in O.A.No.3284 of 1997, quashed the punishment order. 3. Based on the order dated 03.03.2000 in O.A.No.3284 of 1997, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.277, Public Works (A1) Department, dated 30.05.2000 i...
Tag this Judgment!Siruvadi Mosque Wakf Vs. the Tamilnadu Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
In view of the fact that the issues involved in these two Writ Petitions are overlapping, they have been taken up together and a common order is passed. 2.By a registered Document No.1085 of 1910, dated 14.02.1910, a Wakf was created by late Mr.A.H.M.Khader Hussain Sahib along with his two sons. A Writ Petition was filed in W.P.No.36258 of 2007 by A.Mohamed Salem Khan and two others, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Executive Officer and the Superintendent of Wakfs to get the registration of the Wakf property which is the subject matter of Document No.1085 of 1910, dated 14.02.1910. In W.P.No.36258 of 2007, dated 09.01.2008, this Court has passed an order directing the respondents 2 and 3 therein to complete the process of registration of properties as Wakf properties after conducting a proper enquiry. In pursuance to the directions issued, the second respondent has registered the properties as Wakf properties. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.262...
Tag this Judgment!Anbarasu Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
“The law, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”... This is a message from the father of our nation, who preached and practiced non violence, the great soul “Mahatma Gandhi”. Saint Thiruvalluvar, the great Tamil Poet, in one of his couplets, 2000 years ago, wrote thus:- “bfhiyapw; bfhoahiu Bte;(J) xWj;jy;, igA;TH;; fis fl; ljbdhL Beu;.” which means, “For a King to punish criminals with death, is like pulling up the weeds in the green corn.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also upheld the constitutionality of death sentence. But, the debate goes on. The matters before us pertain to the said issue where, the prime question is “To hang” or “Not to hang”, the accused before us for the heinous crimes allegedly committed by them. The Government of India awarded “Padmashri” to the first deceased “Dr.A.Malik Mohammed” in recognition of his service to the nation, but these accused awarded him d...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Alias Ramesh Babu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The appellants are the accused 1 to 7 in S.C.No.72 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam. Originally there were nine accused. One Chinnaiah @ Sivakumar was arrayed as first accused in the final report, died during trial. Therefore, the order of these accused who were arrayed originally as accused 2 to 8 was rearranged as accused 1 to 7. The eighth accused, one Thayammal, was acquitted by the Trial Court. 2.By judgment dated 20.12.2010, the Trial Court convicted the appellants 1 and 2 under Sections 148 and 324 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month for offence under Section 148 IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo R.I. for 6 months for offence under Section 324 IPC. The third appellant has been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The fourth appellant has be...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayalakshmi Cashew Co. and ors. Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987. The petitioner in both writ petitions is one and the same company, I.e., Vijayalakshmi Cahew Company, having their headquarters at Kollam, Kerala State. The first writ petition was represented by its Branch Manager at Gandarvakottai, Pudukkottai District. The second writ petition was represented by its Proprietor K.Raveendranathan Nair. The proprietor of the said company is also the petitioner in all the five criminal original petitions. 2.The Branch Manager at Gandarvakottai filed the first writ petition before the Principal Bench on 15.7.2005 seeking for a direction to forbear the respondents, i.e., the Commissioner for Agricultural Marketing and Agricultural Business, Chennai, the Secretary, Pudukkottai Market Committee and the Supervisor, Regulated market, Gandarvakottai from demanding or collecting market fee from the petitioner in respect of cashew nut kernel brought into the notified ma...
Tag this Judgment!R.Vikram Singh Rajah Bonsle Vs. V.S. Jagannathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
In the affidavit filed by the first defendant the following are stated:- The suit has been filed on a mortgage. The first defendant has filed a detailed written statement and it has been specifically stated that the property mortgaged is at Door No.162-16, First Street, Ravi Colony, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai-16 and this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction and probably the jurisdiction is only with the District Court, Chengalpet It is also pointed out in the written statement as follows: “The plaint in para has made a laconic averment that “leave to sue has been obtained against the defendants and this property in Application No.---/2001 by an order dated ...... “. Thus deliberately proper particulars were not given namely the Application No., and date of order in the copy of the plaint served on this defendant.” 2. In the counter filed by the plaintiff it is stated that the present application of the first defendant challenging the jurisdiction and maintainabili...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakumar Textiles Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The petitioners, viz., Sivakumar Textiles and its sole proprietor, have come up before this Court assailing the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the first respondent herein, passed in I.A.No.1188 of 2011 in AIR (SA) No.796 of 2011 dated 04.10.2011. 2.The facts in nutshell are as follows: The petitioners availed agricultural loan on 21.02.2006 from the third respondent-ICICI Bank, to the tune of Rs.2.33 crores and created an equitable mortgage by mortgaging agricultural properties including a piece of land with buildings as security for the said loan. As the petitioners defaulted in repayment of loan, the third respondent-bank proceeded against the petitioners by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued a notice dated 28.10.2009 under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.2,89,03,317.54 within a period of 60 sixty days from the date of the notice. As the petitioners have not responded to the said notice, possession notice dated 27.10....
Tag this Judgment!The Management and anr. Vs. the Controlling Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
In W.P.(MD)No.9241 of 2004, the petitioner is a trade union seeking to challenge a notice issued under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 28.08.2003 issued by the second respondent co-operative society. In the notice issued under Section 9-A, it was informed that the settlement under Section 12(3) entered into by the then board of directors without prior permission dated 17.08.1999 cannot be implemented in view of the illegality in entering into the settlement and that the society was recurring heavy losses during the relevant period. Already steps were taken by the Provident Fund Department through distraint proceedings. Dues are to be paid to the ESIC also. Therefore, since the settlement was signed without prior permission and it was terminated with effect from 31.08.2003. The workers were informed that the amounts will be paid with effect from 01.09.2003 only as per earlier settlement dated 15.05.1992. 2.The petitioner union filed a writ petition before the Principal...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Daishan Haizhou Shipyard Company Limited Vs. Poompuhar Shipping Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The petitioner has come before this Court seeking Mandamus directing the respondents to open their finance bid (price bid) and evaluate their price bid along with the other short listed tenders. 2.The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent Corporation invited global tenders for dry docking and repairs and also for procurement of Marine paints in connection with V Special Survey/ Dry Docking and Repairing of 'M.V.TAMIL KAMARAJ'. The tender notification was issued on 09.10.2011. The petitioner submitted their bid on 02.11.2011 along with the required documents. However, the petitioner was disqualified in the technical bid on certain reasons. As the respondent Corporation is trying to open and finalize the financial bid without considering petitioner's bid, the petitioner is before this Court seeking mandamus. 3.Mr.G.Arul Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Company is having much experience for dry docking and for repairs and infact it parti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »