Chennai Court July 2011 Judgments
S. Govinda Rao Vs. the Director of School Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, praying for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 10.05.2005, passed by the second respondent, vide which the medical reimbursement claim of the petitioner stands rejected for not having been raised within sixty days. 2. The translated version of the impugned order reads as under:- Proceedings of Thanjavur District Elementary Educational Officer Na.Ka.No.6331/A1/2000 dated 10.05.2005 Sub:- Medical Fund to Tamil Nadu Government Employees Scheme - 1991 - Aid to Primary School Teachers and others. Mr. S.Govindarao, Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Perumankudi at Govirasapuram, Papanasam - Reg. Ref:- (1) S. Govindarao Application dated 16.06.1999. (2) Proceedings of District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur in Na.Ka.No.6331/A1/2000 dated 07.06.2002. (3) Proceedings of Director of School Education, in Na.Ka.No. 46341/EG3/99 dated 26.08.2000. (4) Proceedings of Direct...
Tag this Judgment!P.Pappammal and ors. Vs. the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1.The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8926 of 2009 (P.Pappammal) was appointed as a part-time water woman on 01.06.1977 in the 5th respondent school, which is an aided school governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and admittedly her appointment was within the sanctioned strength of the 5th respondent school and she has been continuing in service ever since her date of appointment till date. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8927 of 2009 (M.Uma) was appointed as a part-time water woman in the 5th respondent school on 01.04.1993 within the sanctioned strength and she has also been continuing in service without any break. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7256 of 2009 (N.Maheswari) was appointed as a part-time sweeper in the 5th respondent school on 04.06.1982 within the sanctioned strength and she is also continuing in the said post till date. 2.With the common grievance that their services have not been regularised inspite of their repeated re...
Tag this Judgment!Urgentechs and David Associates Vs. the Chief Engineer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The petitioner entered into a contract with the Department of Space, Antheriksha Bhavan, New BEL Road, Bangalore for carrying on the following ten works:- 1.Construction of Test Bay. 2.Construction of Blast Wall 3.Construction of Motor Control Room Field Assembly and SPTA. 4.Construction of Hydrogen Burning Yard. 5.Construction of Hydrogen Vent Stock. 6.Construction of LOX Disposal pit. 7.Construction of Cable Trench for Data Cable. 8.Internal PH works. 9.Septic Tank. 10.Ferrocement Overhead Tank - 1 CUM capacity. 2. The work order was placed on the petitioner on 01.03.2004 vide Order dated 19.02.2004. The time stipulated for completion of the work was six months from the date of placing of work order. 3. The case of the petitioner, is that due to lack of assistance of other contractors, the work was delayed, and was finally completed on 30.06.2006. On account of the delay in execution of the work, the petitioner raised claim for escalated price. The Engineer in-charge rejected the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Arumuganeri Salt Workers' Coop Vs. the President And Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The petitioner Management has challenged the award, passed by the learned Labour Court, Tirunelveli, vide which, the reference stands ordered in favour of the workmen. 2.The respondent workmen, were employed by the petitioner, on daily wages. Under the statutory settlement, entered with the 1st respondent workmen, in the year 1992, the minimum wages payable were fixed at Rs.28/- [Rupees Twenty eight only] per day for male workers and Rs.26/- [Rupees Twenty six only] per day for female workers. 3.On 1.04.1993, the petitioner Management reduced wages to Rs.24.90/- for men and Rs.22.90/- for female, to bring it, in consonance with the Minimum Wages Act. 4.The workmen, being aggrieved by the reduction of their wages, sought reference of dispute to the Labour Court. The reference stands answered in favour of the petitioner, by learned Labour Court holding that the reduction of the wages was in violation of section 9(a) of the Industrial Dispute Act, as admittedly, no notice was issued to...
Tag this Judgment!V.Srinivasan Vs. the Commissioner Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceeding ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The petitioners seeks, a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the charge memo issued to the petitioner for violating Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Servants Conduct Rules 1979. 2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that in the absence of investigation, under section 154 Cr.P.C and registration of FIR, no charge can be framed against the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended, that the charge sheet was ex-facie, illegal, without jurisdiction and void under law, as the first respondent had no jurisdiction to initiate the departmental proceedings, except on the basis of the materials collected in the investigation, and further-more that, in the absence of FIR, no further investigation can be carried out. 4.The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are totally misconceived. For holding, a departmental enquiry, neither registration of FIR nor police investigation, are necessary. The departmen...
Tag this Judgment!L.Savariraj Vs. the Commissioner of Municipal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The petitioner, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer to the competent authority. 2.The petitioner is a 'Watchman' in the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, he sought assistance of an Advocate to represent him in the enquiry proceedings. 3.The request made by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner thereafter, participated in the enquiry and when the enquiry report was submitted to the competent authority and notice issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why enquiry report be not accepted, the petitioner has approached this court. 4.The writ petition, prima facie is not competent, as remedy with the petitioner is, to reply to the show cause notice to the competent authority, raising all the points in the reply, to challenge enquiry report, it will be for the competent authority to see whether, the enquiry was conducted by following due...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Salem Spices Private Limited Vs. the Employees Provident Fund Orga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order, dated 26.06.2005 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation covering the establishment of the petitioner under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. The only ground of challenge is that the impugned order proceeds on a wrong presumption that it was on the request of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed, whereas, in fact the petitioner had objected to the coverage of the petitioner's establishment under the Employees Provident Fund Act. 3. In support of this contention, the petitioner has referred to Paragraph 5 of the affidavit which reads as under: 5. On 28.03.2005, the Enforcement Officer gave a hand written show cause notice and on 21.04.2005, a prosecution show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In response to this show cause notice, a letter was written by the petitioner on 28.04.2005 to the Enforcement Officer requ...
Tag this Judgment!S.Kandasamy Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. This Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, acting as Co-operative Tribunal. 2. The petitioner had challenged the award of Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies before the Tribunal. The limitation prescribed for filing appeal is 60 days. The appeal was filed with a delay of two days. The petitioner also moved an application for condoning the delay of two days in filing the appeal. 3. The learned Tribunal allowed the application subject to payment of Rs.100/-(Rupees one hundred only) as cost. The petitioner did not deposit the cost. 4. In view of the non-compliance of the conditional order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as time barred. 5. Though the order was passed in 2002, the petitioner preferred this writ in October 2005. 6. As per the admitted facts referred to above, there is no merit in the present writ petition for the reason that the order imp...
Tag this Judgment!R.Selvasubramanian Vs. the Deputy Inspector-general of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue consequential orders, promoting the petitioner as Head Constable in compliance with the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and also to pay all the consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner filed Original Application No.377 of 2006, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, and on closure of the learned Tribunal, the case has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.5393 of 2007. 3. The admitted facts are that the petitioner joined the Police service in Tamil Nadu Special Police, III Battalion, in the year 1993. The petitioner was transferred to Armed Reserve, Madurai City. On 01.09.1995, with consent he was posted to the Police Telecommunication Branch, Madurai, while remaining in the parent cadre. 4. In view of the clean record of service, the petitioner was promoted as Grade-I Constable as per seniority w.e.f. 07.11.1995. It is submitted by t...
Tag this Judgment!Veeralakshmi Vs. Kannapiran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment made in S.C.No.142/07 dated 24.08.2009, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovilpatty. 2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:- 2(i). P.W.1 is a retired Teacher. The victim girl P.W.2 and P.Ws.3 and 4 are her daughters and son. P.W.5 is the neighbour of P.W.1. P.W.1 lodged a complaint Ex.P1 with the respondent police stating that P.W.2 is a handicapped girl, who is not employed, that the accused is the neighbour, that P.W.2 informed her that 15 days back the accused misbehaved with her, that P.W.1 hauled up the accused and his father Ganapathy Naicker, that Ganapathy Naicker requested P.W.1 not to divulge the matter to anybody else, that the accused had been repeatedly misbehaving with P.W.2, that on 10.09.2006, in the morning, P.W.2 told P.W.1 that she should not live in the world for the misbehaviour of the accused towards her and she also wept, that at about 9.00 p.m. on that day, P.W.2 consumed Nu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »