Chennai Court February 2011 Judgments
The Puducherry Slum Clearance Board Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is Puducherry Slum Clearance Board represented by its Chief Executive Officer. They have filed the writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 ESI from proceeding to take any action under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 as amended by Central Act, 29/1989 against the petitioner Board including recovery action by way of freezing its Bank Accounts and collecting the contribution amount till the third respondent viz., Union of India passes an order on the petitioner's application made under Section 90 of the ESI Act sent on various dates including 13.08.1997, 13.02.2002, 07.04.2006, 27.02.2007 etc., and the application made under Section 1(4) of the ESI Act dated 16.04.2007.2. The writ petition was admitted on 22.05.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim injunction in M.P.No.1 of 2007. In M.P.No.2 of 2007, the petitioner Board sought for refund of the amount of Rs.2,98,566/- collected from the two current Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Hari And Company Vs. St. Antony's Traders And Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
COMMON 1. These appeals arise out of the order of learned single Judge in A.Nos.4337 and 4810 of 2010 whereby the learned single Judge declined to pass an order of arrest of Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy holding that claim of supply of necessaries do not constitute a "maritime lien".2. Plaintiff is an Import and Export Company and they are also engaged in the business of Clearing and Forwarding Agency which includes supply of various necessaries to Vessel in Dock. Case of Plaintiff is that Defendant in the course of business would lie anchored in the Indian Ports at various places at various points of time, particularly in Chennai and Tuticorin Ports. When the ship is so anchored, the Plaintiff would supply various necessaries to the Defendant at the request of the Master of the Vessel. Plaintiff would raise invoices and as such, maintaining a running Account with the Defendant. It is averred that Plaintiff has been supplying necessaries to the Defendant for several years and an outstand...
Tag this Judgment!Sidco Nagar Welfare Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
COMMON ORDER1. As the facts involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner is a registered Association for the welfare of the residents of SIDCO Nagar, Villivakkam, having 5000 residential units and population of about 25,000. From the date of the registration on 19.06.1985, the petitioner's Association claims to be functioning and looking after the welfare and civic amenities of the residents of SIDCO Nagar. A master plan was approved by the 1st respondent for the entire neighbourhood as Phase 1, Phase-II and Phase-III providing different types of user zones for residents, commercial activities, schools, parks and play ground etc. After the approval of the master plan by the 1st respondent, in conformity with the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act and Development Control Rules, the 3rd respondent/the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has laid out park and play ground to an extent of 12 grounds in Phase - 1, 4th Main Road,...
Tag this Judgment!S.Thangasamy Vs. the Employee's State Insurance Corporation And Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a writ in the nature of declaration, declaring that he is entitled to have the benefit of the E.S.I. Scheme as well as the treatment in the E.S.I. hospital on having attained the age of superannuation.2. The writ petition was admitted on 03.06.2008. Pending the writ petition, notice was taken by the respondents.3. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows:-The petitioner was employed in the second respondent Factory. He joined the Factory at Madurai on 01.10.1976 as a temporary worker. Subsequently, he got his services confirmed on 01.01.1980. It was claimed that he is covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ESI Act). However, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 21.05.1999. The dismissal of the petitioner became the subject matter of challenge in I.D.No.115 of 2000, before the Industrial Tribunal. Even while the case was pending before the Tribunal, he attained ...
Tag this Judgment!P.Kanagaraj Vs. the Block Development Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner herein was appointed as Panchayat Assistant in the year 1995 and initially posted at Padarami Panchayat, Gudiyatham Taluk. Subsequently, he was transferred to Kallapadi Panchayat and, in the year 2008, he was posted at Gudanagaram Panchayat by the Block Development Officer/Commissioner. According to the petitioner, while he was serving in Gudanagaram Panchayat, the 2nd respondent/Panchayat President asked him to do some malpractice in the accounts, for which, the petitioner did not oblige and, as a result, the 2nd respondent developed grudge against the petitioner and was taking efforts to remove the petitioner and, in his place, to place an obliging person. In that background, alleging irregularities on the part of the petitioner from 04.01.2010 to 10.09.2010 and stating that such irregularities resulted in a loss of Rs.2 lakhs to the Panchayat, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned suspension order, dated 27.09.2010, as against the petitioner. The said ord...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Rsb Transmissions (i) Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
COMMON ORDER1. While the first writ petition is filed by the trade union seeking for a direction to the first respondent State to pass orders on the conciliation failure report, dated 10.5.2010 sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation-1), Chennai at Sriperumbudur for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, the second writ petition is filed by the management seeking for a direction to the Conciliation Officer to call for the petitioner and the two trade unions including the writ petitioner in W.P.No.18034 of 2010 to verify whether the settlement dated 9.7.2010 was accepted by majority of the workmen, whether the terms of the settlement were fair and reasonable and after satisfying himself of the terms of the settlement to subscribe his initial whether with the consent or non consent of the writ petition in the other writ petition so as to convert it into one of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2.In the first writ petition, notice of motio...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Cambodia Mills Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner herein, viz., Cambodia Mills Limited, filed the present writ petition challenging the common order, dated 02.9.2004 passed by the Labour Court in various claim petitions filed by the contesting respondents starting from C.P.No.110 of 2004 to C.P.No.164 of 2004.2. The contesting respondents/workmen were represented by Coimbatore District Annai Indira Desiya Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam affiliated to INTUC, before the Labour Court. The claim petitions filed by the workmen were under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the workmen claimed payment of full wages for the period from January 2002 to December 2002, during which, the petitioner management laid-off the workmen. The lay-off was purported to be for the reason that there was some power failure or power trippings, which according to the management, is beyond their control and the workers were not given any work during the said per...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Karpara Project Engineering Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff in so far as the dismissal of the Suit against the 3rd defendant/ 3rd respondent is concerned in C.S.No.623 of 1997 dated 17.07.2001.The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows:2.The appellant is a partnership firm doing business in the erection of boilers, power plants, etc. The first defendant / first respondent was in requirement of a substitution for its boiler. The third defendant entered into a contract with the first defendant for the supply, erection and commission of boiler units on a turnkey basis. The appellant did the dismantling of the then existing boiler, apart from unloading, erection and commissioning of new boiler at the first defendant's Unit, on the basis of the contract given by the first defendant at the instance of the third defendant. The appellant also executed other works such as fabrication of main boiler components and works, which are incidental to the main erection work. T...
Tag this Judgment!Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd. Vs. the Joint Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to challenge the notice issued by the respondent ESI dated 09.11.2006. By the impugned notice, the petitioner was informed that their factory/establishment was inspected by the Inspector of the ESI and it was found that it comes within the coverage provided under Section 1(3) and 1(4) of the Act with effect from 01.11.2006. If later it is found, there will be a direction to pay contribution even for the prior period. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to file appropriate declaration to the branch office at Pallipalayam. The petitioner was also allotted a code number to facilitate the payment of dues to the ESI Corporation.2. Notice of motion was ordered in the writ petition on 23.11.2006 and an interim stay was granted for a limited period, which was extended from time to time. Subsequently, on 06.03.2007, the writ petition was admitted and the interim stay granted already was made absolute. On notice from this Court, t...
Tag this Judgment!D.Ramanathan Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner was working as Noon Meal Organiser in the Centre attached to the Adi Dravidar Welfare Primary School at Chikkathambur, Thuraiyur Taluk. He filed O.A.No.7573 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order dated 09.06.2000.2. By the impugned order, the petitioner's services were terminated by the first respondent District Collector, Tiruchirapalli on account of certain misconduct.3. The Tribunal ordered notice of motion on the Original Application on 17.10.2000. Pending the notice of motion, no interim relief was granted to the petitioner.4. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.45950 of 2006.5. The second respondent has now filed a counter affidavit dated 14.02.2011.6. The facts leading to the petitioner's termination were as follows:-The petitioner along with one Cook Marudhayee were suspended from service vide order dated 30.08.1999. In that order, it w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »