Chennai Court June 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.
S.Surendranath Vs. M/S.Air India Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 26.5.2010 and for direction to pay all the benefits to the petitioner from 26.5.2010. As per the impugned order, the petitioners services were terminated under Service Regulation 13(a).2. The petitioner was appointed originally as a Aircraft Technician in the then M/s.Indian Airlines on 1.11.1980 and he was in service for 30 years. He was promoted to the category of Aircraft Engineer with effect from 19.7.1988, Senior Aircraft Engineer with effect from 12.8.1992, Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer with effect from 1.10.1999 and as Chief Aircraft Engineer with effect from 1.4.2007. a) The first respondent, which is a Central Government Corporation incorporated as a Government Company, as a legal successor of the erstwhile Indian Airlines Corporation constituted and established under the Air Corporation Act, 1937 in the year 1956. The Indian Airlines Corporation was renamed as M/s.Indian Airlines Limited in th...
Sanmina Sci Thozhilalar Sangam Vs. Commissioner of Labour Dms Compound ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. The writ petition is directed against the notification published by the third respondent in Dina Thanthi dated 20.2.2011 and for a consequential direction against the third respondent to resolve the workers demand.2. As per the notification issued by the newspaper, the third respondent asked for applications for appointment of persons on contract basis for Sanmina SCI Electronics Corporation and Nokia Simens Network, situate at Oragadam, fixing the educational qualification as Plus Two, ITI pass for men and women in the age limit between 19 and 28 years on a monthly salary of Rs.5600/- with food and transport facilities free, with a condition to work on contract basis in Nokia calling for applications from men and women who have passed 10th Standard, Plus Two failed in the age group of 19 to 25 years.3. The writ petitioner is a Thozhilalar Sangam, which is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, in which the workers of the third respondent Company are its members. The list of...
P.Balakrishnan Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. These writ petitions are filed for direction against the respondents 1, 3 and 4, to fix the inter-se seniority of the petitioner at the appropriate place of fitment for Senior Assistant in the seniority list drawn by the Puducherry Municipality by taking into consideration the petitioners initial appointment on 05.10.1989 at Thirunallar Commune Panchayat and give him due promotion as Office Manager/Assistant Revenue Officer in the first respondent Municipality with consequential benefits and also challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Municipal Administration, Local Administration Department, Government of Puducherry, third respondent in WP.No.5405 of 2009, dated 03.08.2005, by which the third respondent accorded approval for absorption of the petitioner as Senior Assistant in the Puducherry Municipality, who came on transfer from Thirunallar Commune Panchayat stating that the past services rendered by him may be counted for the purpose of increment, leave, pension and othe...
P.Anand Vs. the Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. The writ petitioners are all final year M.B.B.S. students of the academic year 2010-2011 and they have all sought a writ of declaration to declare that the impugned guidelines, viz., Guidelines for Clinical/Viva Voce Examinations Final Year MBBS (Non Semester) Part-II examinations concerning the subject General Surgery (for brevity, the impugned guidelines) introduced/followed by the first respondent insofar as the same insists minimum of 50% marks individually in the sub-branches, viz., Practical for General Surgery and Orthopedic, as contrary to Regulation 12(4) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997 (for brevity, the MCI Regulations, 1997) and declare the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently declare the petitioners having passed in the university examination in General Surgery in the final year 2010-2011, so as to enable them to proceed with the internship in the year 2011-2012.2.1. The petitioner in W.P.No.8472 of 2011 has...
M.Vijayan and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. The petitioners have challenged the final orders passed by the Government under disciplinary proceedings, imposing minor punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect, by rejecting the appeals filed against the original orders of punishment.2. The petitioner in W.P.No.26611 of 2007, who was appointed as a Grade II Police Constable on 17.11.1988 in the Chennai City Armed Reserve, was on deputation to Crime Branch CID Headquarters from 01.01.1996 to till date and thereafter, promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1995 and further promoted as Head Constable in the year 1998.3. Likewise, the petitioner in W.P.No.26612 of 2007 also joined the service as Grade II Police Constable on 15.9.1976 in Chennai City Armed Reserve and he was deputed to Crime Branch CID Headquarters from 08.10.1986 and promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 31.07.1994.4. Similarly, the petitioner in 26613 of 2007, entered in the Police Department as Grade II Police Constable ...
Tamilnadu Electricity Board Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. The Civil Suit is filed for a judgment and decree, to direct the 1st defendant to pay Rs.37,34,700/- with further interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.24,93,125/- from the date of plaint to date of realisation and to direct the 2nd to 4th respondents to pay Rs.18,67,350/- each with further interest at 18% p.a. each on Rs.12,46,563/- each from the date of plaint till the date of realisation with the costs.2. The following are the contents in the plaint:-2.(a) The plaintiff is a statutory body represented by its Superintending Engineer/Electrical, Mettur Thermal Power Project, Mettur Dam, Salem District. In the course of their requirement of materials for the project, they had placed orders for Turbo General Materials including Condenser Tubes from various parts of India on M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), that the plaintiff insured covering all risks for the transport of the said Turbo Generator materials including Condenser Tubes from various parts of India on behalf of Bharat Heavy ...
B.Shanmugam and ors. Vs. Thulasirama Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. This Second appeal is focussed by D5, D10 to D14, and LRs of deceased D4/V.Damodaran animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2010 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2009 by the Subordinate Judges Court, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Vellore District in O.S.No.24 of 1996. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:(a) The first respondent herein and the deceased Dhanalakshmi Ammal filed the suit seeking the following reliefs as against several defendants, including the appellants herein in this Second Appeal:(i) To declare the absolute title of the plaintiffs to the suit property;(ii) To restrain the defendants by means of permanent injunction in any manner, either by themselves or through their men...
S.K.Rajendran Vs. K.Sakthivel and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the second respondent. No appearance for the first respondent.2. Challenging the fair order and decretal order, dated 23.03.2007 made in E.A.No.66 of 2007 in E.P.No.77 of 2004 in O.S.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharamapuram, this Civil Revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The petitioner herein is the third party to the suit and the decree was obtained by the second respondent herein. The suit in O.S.No.9 of 2001 was filed by the second respondent against the first respondent, that was decreed against the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- with subsequent interest and costs and that the decree reached finality. Pursuant to the decree, the second respondent herein filed E.P.R.No.77 of 2004 before the Court below. The Execution Application in E.A.No.66 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner / third party on the ground that the first respondent herei...
M/S. R.B. Enterprises Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pass orders on the petitioner representation dated 02.02.11 and 29.03.2011 claiming concession rate of tax for the interstate sales turnover covered by declaration forms or issue such other writ, direction as this Hon'ble court.1. Mr.B.Anandan, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 29.3.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 29.3.2011, on ...
T.Ramasami and ors. Vs. Kuttakattu Ramasami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. Since the subject matter and the parties in both the appeals are same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Both the Second Appeals are directed respectively against the common judgment and decrees dated 28.08.1989 made in A.S.Nos.8 of 1989 and 17 of 1988 on the file of II Additional District Court, Salem, whereby the common judgment and decrees dated 20.11.1987 made in O.S.Nos.35 of 1985 and 309 of 1976 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Salem, were set aside.3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.309 of 1976 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Salem, who are defendants 4, 6 and 7 in O.S.No.35 of 1985 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Salem, are the appellants in both the second appeals and the defendants in O.S.No.309 of 1976, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.35 of 1985, are respondents 1 to 3 in both the second appeals. Respondents 4 to 6 are the legal heirs of deceased Varadarajan, the 2nd respondent herein and respondents 7 to 16 are the legal heirs of the deceased Kuttakatt...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »