Chennai Court January 2012 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.
Santhi and ors. Vs. R.Sivasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
This appeal is focussed by the defendants as against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2008 passed by the learned First Additional District Court, Erode in O.S.No.46 of 2006. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance by making the following prayers: “(a) To direct the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as per the terms of the sale agreement dated 08.02.2005 executed by the plaintiff and late S.S.Sathyamoorthi failing which this Honourable Court execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendants. (b) To direct the defendants to pay cost of the suit” alternatively (a) To direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of R...
Dasarathy Motors, Authorised Dealers, Tvs Motor Company Ltd. Vs. P. Ma ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 1.12.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for directions to pay compensation of Rs.54,000/- for the loss due to the selling of defective vehicle and Rs.46,000/- towards mental agony and for costs against the opposite parties. 3. The complainant purchased TVS Flame 125 model Motorcycle on 24.4.2008 from the 2nd opposite party for which the 1st opposite party is the manufacturer, 2nd opposite party offered to carry out 5 free services and 6 paid services periodically. But not kept the same as promised. The vehicle become defective if driving over and above 30 km speed automatically turns off and stopped and the self starter in the motorcycle do...
Central Organisation of Tamilnadu Vs. Tamilnadu Electricity Board and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
The Writ Petition is filed by the Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees (COTEE) affiliated to CITU. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner union challenged the validity of the Board Proceedings in (Permanent) B.P.(CH) No.77 (Secretariat Branch) dated 28th March 2007 along with the Board proceedings in (Permanent) B.P (Ch) No.111 (Secretariat Branch) dated 9th May 2007. By these two proceedings, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board decided as a matter of principle to deduct yearly subscription from willing employees of various unions and associations if they make a specific request to the Board and the deduction should start from May 2007 to June 2007. It was also indicated that the willing employees should give written authorization to the Pay Drawing Officer concerned and in such an event, the detailed terms and conditions in this regard will be issued by the Board. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner trade union as reflected in their representation sent to the Bo...
Arulmigu Vaithianathaswamy Devasthanam Vs. the Hindu Religious and Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
This Writ Petition is a third round of litigation between the priests and the employees on the one hand and Arulmigu Shri Vaithianathaswamy Devasthanam represented by its Hereditary Trustee on the other hand over the fixation of just salary payable. It is rather ironic that the priests who take the prayers from the public to the Lord almighty have come before the Court of law with their own prayers, although as party respondents this time. Facts in brief: 2.Everything that exists in the world has got a history in it. A Temple with its deities is no exception. Arulmigu Shri Vaithianathaswamy Temple situated at Vaitheeswarankoil is built by the great Chola Kings of ancient times. It has been renovated over the years by the subsequent rulers of the tamil country. The Temple has Lord Shiva as a presiding deity. During the British rule and more particularly in the year 1842 the then Government had handed over the management of the Temple to the Pandarasannadhi of Dharmapuram Adheenam. As th...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Tvl.Bhagavandass and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
The Tax Case Revision is at the instance of the Revenue raising the question, viz., “Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal would be justified in entertaining a review application and allowing the same without adverting to the documents placed before it ?” 2.The brief facts are as follows:- The respondent-assessee is a dealer in iron and steel and they had reported a total taxable turnover of Rs.10,92,88,434/- and Rs.8,50,421/- respectively in their monthly returns for the Assessment Year 1994-95. They also claimed exemption for difference of High Sea sales during the months of September 1994 and February 1995. The said claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the matter went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT). Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee filed number of documents to show that the transaction was High Sea Sales entitling exemption. Having considered those materials, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal,...
Tamil Nadu Medical Department Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
These two Writ Petitions raise a question as to whether the female Nursing Assistants and female Sanitary Workers would come under the direct control of Resident Medical Officers or the Nursing Superintendent of Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. 2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.1960 of 2011 at the instance of Tamil Nadu Medical Department of All Workers and Sanitary Workers Association challenges the proceedings dated 06.01.2010 on the file of Director of Medical Education, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-10, whereby and whereunder, the female Sanitary workers were made to work under the control of the Nursing Superintendent. 3. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.6037 of 2011 is at the instance of Tamil Nadu Government Nurses Association and their challenge is to the proceedings dated 27.05.2011 issued by the Medical Superintendent, Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, indicating that the female Sanitary Workers would work under the control of Health Insp...
The Management Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Chennai-6, the first respondent pertaining to P.G.A.206 of 2001 and to quash the order passed therein dated 14.3.2002. 2. Heard Mr.M.R.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.A.Dinakari, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. The private Matriculation Higher Secondary School, has challenged the order of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The third respondent, Post Graduate Assistant claimed that she is an employee of the petitioner school, an establishment and therefore, entitled to the benefit of Payment of Gratuity under the Gratuity Act. The second respondent Controlling Authority ordered Pa...
Management of Malini Textiles Private Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
These Writ Petitions were filed by the management of Malini Textiles Private Limited challenging an ex-parte award dated 27.10.2003 passed in I.D.No.466 of 2002 in W.P.No.4771 of 2007, I.D.No.467 of 2002 dated 20.11.2003 in W.P.No.4772 of 2007, C.P.No.779 of 2004 dated 10.10.2006 in W.P.No.4773 OF 2007 and C.P.N.780 of 2004 dated 10.10.2006 in W.P.No.4774 OF 2007. 2. In W.P.No.4771 of 2007, the 2nd respondent (C.Rajaraman) raised an industrial dispute regarding his non-employment and the matter was taken before the Labour Court, Coimbatore as I.D.No.466 of 2002. The Labour Court set the petitioner management as ex parte on 14.10.2003 and thereafter, recording the statement of the workman, who examined himself as W.W.1 and marking the ESI card as Ex.W.1, passed exparte award. The exparte award was made on the basis of Ex.W.1 stating that the workman had worked in the Textile Mill. Therefore, he was eligible for the relief as claimed by him, namely reinstatement with backwages and other ...
The General Secretary Vs. the Management and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
The petitioner is a Trade Union affiliated to INTUC. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge the award passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.339 of 1996. 2. By the impugned award, the Labour Court dismissed the I.D., by holding that it was not inclined to grant any relief to the workmen viz., P.L.Lourduswamy, for whom the dispute was raised. 3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 18.04.2007. However, when the matter came up on 16.11.2011, this Court directed the matter to refer the resolution of dispute by the Lok Adalat. But, however, the Lok Adalat returned the reference by stating that the parties were not willing to settle the dispute. 4. On notice from this Court, the first respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated 21.12.2011. The facts leading to the dispute are as follows:- The workman P.L.Lourduswamy was working in the first respondent Mill from 1961 onwards. He was posted as a Store Clerk. While he was working in third shirt on 14.05...
T.M. Sulochana Ammal Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2012
Aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2005 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 10009 of 1993 filed seeking to quash G.O. Ms. No. 832 Revenue Department dated 31.5.1991 and the consequent notice of the Authorised Officer dated 30.4.1993, the landlady has preferred this Appeal. 2. W.P. No. 5585 has been filed by the petitioners claiming to be the cultivating tenants of the Survey No. in question, seeking to quash G.O. Ms. No. 821 dated 31.5.1991 allotting 8.63 acres in S. No. 1/1A-2 in Moulivakkam, Sriperumpudur, Chengai-MGR District to the fourth respondent and for a further direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to assign the said lands or any other lands that may be taken over as surplus lands to them in accordance with Rules 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules 1965. 3. W.P. No. 4430 has been filed by the landlady seeking to quash the order dated 16.3.1998 passed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »