Chennai Court January 2012 Judgments
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Division I) Ltd Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
W.P.30230/2007 is filed by the petitioner/Management, which is a State owned Transport Corporation having head quarters at Salem. They are aggrieved by the Award in I.D.No.473/2004 dated 08.09.2006. 2. By the impugned award, the Labour Court, Salem-the first respondent in W.P.30230/2007 granted reinstatement in favour of the second respondent with service continuity but without backwages and other attendant benefits. 3. Initially, notice of motion was ordered and interim stay was granted in this writ petition along with another W.P., viz., W.P.30229/2007 filed by the same management in respect of another industrial dispute in I.D.No.485/2002 relating to one R.Pandian. Subsequently, both the writ petitions were admitted on 26.03.2009 and this Court also directed payment of the last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even while the writ petition was pending, the aggrieved workman filed a cross writ petition being W.P.37629/2007, challenging that po...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mayilammal Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
This habeas corpus petition is filed by the mother of the detenue by name K.Kanthan, son of Krishnan, aged 24 years, seeking to quash the order of detention dated 24.8.2011 and to set the detenue at liberty, who is now confined at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai,. 2. The habeas corpus petition was admitted on 2.11.2011. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit. 3. The grounds urged in the affidavit filed in support of the habeas corpus petition are, (i) The documents relied on/referred to in the detention order are not furnished to the detenue in spite of the specific request made to the respondents viz., copy of the FIR in Crime No.100/95 on the file of Kallidaikurichi Police Station registered under Section 307 IPC, and FIR in Crime No.145/95 on the file of Veeravanallur Police Station registered under Section 302 IPC, due to which the detenu was not able to make effective representation to revoke the order of detention. (ii) There is delay in communicating the order of de...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and ors. Vs. K.Madalaimuthu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
The first respondent herein was a Direct Recruit District Registrar, on his being selected in Grade-I Examination conducted by TNPSC and he joined the service during 1989. Contending that there were anomalies in the fixation of seniority in the cadre of District Registrar, since the State Government reckoned the seniority of promoted District Registrars from the date of their initial temporary appointment and not from the date of their regularisation in the service, the direct recruits have initiated writ proceedings before this Court, which ultimately culminated in their filing Civil Appeal Nos.2791-2793 of 2002 before the Honourable Apex Court and the Honourable Apex Court by the judgment dated 4.7.2006 (K.Madalaimuthu vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 6 SCC 558), allowed the said Civil Appeals directing the Department to re-fix the seniority of promotees from the date of their regularization, instead of initial appointment. 2. Since the orders of the Honourable Apex Court we...
Tag this Judgment!Basile Irou Vs. International Ayurvedic Health Centre
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
This revision, filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Building (Lease and Rent Control ) Act, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2006 passed in R.C.A.No.12 of 2005 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2005 passed in H.R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2003, on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry. 2. The landlord is the petitioner and the respondent is the tenant. The tenancy is in respect of a premises bearing door No.118, St. Gilles Street, Pondicherry which was given on lease to the respondent pursuant to a lease deed dated 08.08.1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.1600/-. The landlord tenant relationship, lease deed and the monthly rent are admitted. The petitioner filed an eviction petition on the ground that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation and that the premises is in dilapidated condition and requires to be re-constructed. In the eviction petition...
Tag this Judgment!K.Ramanathan and anr. Vs. the Chief Engineer (Personnel) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
1. Writ Petition No.31629 of 2002 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed in Memo No.117352/144/G17/G171/2000-3 dated 16.06.2001 on the file of the first respondent and consequential Proceedings made in Memo No.852/312/A.1/F. Pay Anomaly/2002 dated 01.06.2002 and Memo No.852/312/A1/F.Pay Anomaly/2002 dated 26.06.2002 both on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same. 2. Writ Petition No.31630 of 2002 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed in Memo No.082898/511/G17/G171/94-29 dated 29.05.2001 on the file of the first respondent and consequential Proceedings made in Memo No.782/565/A.1/F. Pay Anomaly/2002 dated 01.06.2002 and Memo No.782/565/A.1/F. Pay Anomaly/2002-1 dated 26.06.2002 both on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same. 3. The two writ petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants in July, 1971 in the respondent Electricity Board. They...
Tag this Judgment!K.Varadharajan Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
1. Heard Mr.S.Arunachalam, appearing for Ms.S.Girija, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.R.Raghavan, learned counsel for the second respondent Management. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the Award passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Salem in C.P.No.203 of 2003 dated 25.11.2005. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner workman and declined to compute the amount as claimed by him. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 03.07.2007. Subsequently, attempts were made to bring about conciliation between the parties and the matter was adjourned. Finally on 09.07.2010, this Court noted the fact that despite the writ petition was of the year 2007, the second respondent Management had not filed any counter affidavit. On the contrary, on behalf of the writ petitioner, an additional typed set of documents dated 02.03.2010 was filed. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner who was working as a Typist from 21.12....
Tag this Judgment!K.C.Anandan Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
The petitioners are admittedly employees of IMPCOPS Limited at Chennai 41. They were placed under suspension. The 2nd respondent Medical Practitioners' Cooperative Society is governed by the provisions of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The petitioners were placed under suspension. In these Writ Petitions, they have challenged an order of the Secretary incharge dated 16.12.2011 signed on 17.12.2011, in which the petitioners were informed that the management pursuant to the suspension are proposing to appoint an enquiry officer. It is also stated that the for the purpose of extending subsistence allowance, it is unnecessary to raise any dispute and if the petitioners signed the register kept at the gate, they will be paid subsistence allowance as per law. 2. The contention of the petitioners was that subsequent to the said order, an enquiry officer has been appointed. The enquiry officer after listing out the charges informed the petitioners that the enquiry will be conduct...
Tag this Judgment!S.Gnaneswaran Vs. S.Sivanandam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
The 1st defendant in O.S.No.5 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court cum Fast Track Court, Tirupattur is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.149 of 1997 against the revision petitioner and six others for partition and the revision petitioner contested the suit by filing statement raising various issues. The case was posted for trial on 13.2.2008 and on that date the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reported no instructions and the revision petitioner was set exparte and exparte preliminary decree was passed on 13.2.2008. Thereafter, the final decree application was filed by the respondent and notice was issued to the revision petitioner returnable by 11.10.2010 and on receipt of the same, the revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte preliminary decree and also filed an application in I.A.No.37 of 2010 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!K.Gunasekaran Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
The petitioner is a workman employed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner along with the Deputy Secretary of the trade union sent a representation under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Officer at Chennai 108. The dispute was with reference to the minor penalty, namely postponement of two years increment imposed on the petitioner, vide order dated 17.1.1996. 2. On notice from the Conciliation Officer, the 2nd respondent State owned Transport Corporation filed Objection statement dated 19.12.2011 objecting to the maintainability of such a dispute. Apart from the merits of the case, the Corporation held that the dispute was not maintainable. It was thereafter, when the Conciliation Officer wanted to know whether there was any espousal by other workers in supporting the case of the petitioner so as to convert the dispute of an individual dispute into collective dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act, he wanted the documents relating to the trade union regardin...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Narendra Kumar Vs. Mrs.Sumathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
This revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order and decreetal order dated 19.09.2005, passed by the IX Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai partly allowing E.A.No.3965 of 2005 in E.P.No.643 of 2005 as far as it disallowed the decree-holder's claim for interest at 36% per annum from November 1999 to 01.01.2001 and for the pendente lite period from 02.01.2001 to 21.09.2003, the date of decree. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2001 for recovery of the advance amount of Rs.45,000/- paid for purchase of the property bearing door No.49, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 79 together with interest at the rate of 36% per annum. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit claim and filed a written statement. The trial Court granted a decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 22.09.2003. The respondent/decree-holder filed E.P.No.643 of 2005, to recover the decree amount by arrest and detention of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »