Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

P. Selvakumar Vs. M/S. Tamilnadu Industrial Explosive Ltd. Rep by Its ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(2)LLN253

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order TEL/PL/W/1084/2012-13 dt.28.5.2012 of the respondent and quash the same.) The petitioner is working as Auto Mechanic in the Tamil Nadu Industrial Explosives Limited at Katpadi, Vellore District. The General Manager by his proceedings in TEL/PL/W/1084/2012-13 dated 28.5.2012, transferred and posted the petitioner at Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., in Andhra Pradesh State. As per the said order, his Headquarters is at Ramagundam, Andhra Pradesh State. Challenging the said order of transfer, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 2. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Explosive Limited at Katpadi, Vellore District is a Government of Tamil Nadu Enterprise. The petitioner is now working in the Marketing Department. One of the duties of an employee of the Marketing Department is to go out to the field for mobiliz...

M/S. K.K. Press Tools and Components Rep by Its Proprietor, Chennai Vs ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TNGST No.1422358/2006-07 and quash the order dated 28.5.2012 passed therein.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to produce the relevant records relating to the Form XVII Declaration before the impugned order, dated 28.5.2012, had been passed by the respondent. 3. The said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not been refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 28.5.2012, is set aside. It is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to submit the relevant records relating to the Form XVII Declaration to the respondent, pursuan...

M/S. Darcl Logistics Limited and Another Vs. the Commissioner of Comme ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner on 28.08.2012 and hear the revision petition early or permit the petitioner to file personal bond in lieu of bank guarantee. Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner on 28.08.2012 and hear the revision petition early or permit the petitioner to file personal bond in lieu of bank guarantee.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated28.08.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has no ...

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Neyveli Vs. S. Kumar and Another

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2006 made in MCOP No.1605 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore.) 1. The National Insurance Company questions the quantum of compensation. 2. On 01.03.2004, the first respondent sustained injury in a road accident. The Tribunal granted him Rs.1,74,320/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the evidence of P.W.2 and records would submit that in the facts and circumstances, adopting the multiplier method would not arise; on the whole, the Tribunal had awarded excessive compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent also referred to the medical evidence and submitted that the Tribunal had awarded him reasonable compensation. The learned counsel would also specifically point out that under various other heads, the Tribunal has awarded him very less compensation. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record and also gone ...

S. Gopi Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai and Ot ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Declaration declaring the clause ‘3’ of para 3 of the impugned Board proceedings in B.P.Ms. (FB) No. 46, (Admn. Branch) dated 13.10.1995, passed by the 2nd respondent, “In the case of already expired staff while in service, the dependant should apply for employment assistance within three years from the date of issue of this order” as ultravires and unconstitutional and violative of G.O.Ms.No. 120, Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995 and subsequent clarification letter by the Labour and Employment Department, in Letter No. 39924/01/95-1. Dated 11.10.1995 and subsequent proceeding in latter No.05672/98-1 Ni.pe.2/Ni.Me/Ni.U.3/99 dated 06.04.1999 passed by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and provide any suitable post to him on compassionate grounds.) 1. The petitioner S.Gop...

K. Ramachandran Vs. Kanna Gounde and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(5)LW440; 2012(8)MLJ80

(Second Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in A.S.No.89 of 2002 confirming the judgement and decree dated 30.10.2002 passed by the District Munsif, Gingee, in O.S.No.475 of 1989.) The second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff as against the judgement and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in A.S.No.89 of 2002 confirming the judgement and decree dated 30.10.2002 passed by the District Munsif, Gingee, in O.S.No.475 of 1989, which was filed for partition. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: (i) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit as against the defendants seeking the following reliefs: "a) to declare that the plaintiff is enti...

N. Sambasivam Vs. the Secretary to Government, Education Department an ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.110213/ C2/E2/2010 dated 27.7.2012 and quash the same.) The petitioner joined as Physical Education Teacher on 6.9.1984. Before he joined as Physical Education Teacher, he passed P.U.C. during the year 1974. The petitioner also passed B.A. (Economics) during April 1984. He passed B.Ed. (Social Science) during January 1996. He had obtained second degree B.A. (History) (one year course) during December 2010. The same is not recognised for the purpose of employment/promotion. 2. The petitioner was in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher. A panel for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant was prepared in the year 2001. The name of the petitioner was included at Sl.No.204. Based on the panel, the petitioner was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant on 14.8.2001. While so, after n...

M/S. Jones Foundation Pvt Ltd. Represented by Its Director P. Veeraman ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in GDNo.98/2012-13 (M.Sl.No.87) dated 13/10/2012 and the consequential proceedings in G.D.No.98/2012-13 dt.16.10.2012 quash the same and further direct the first respondent to release the goods detained in the above impugned proceedings without insisting upon any payment of tax or compounding fee in view of the salient statutory provisions under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed: i) The petitio...

S. Perumal Gounder Vs. the District Collector and Another

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the application of the petitioner dated 08.08.2011, for grant of lease to quarry gravel mud and broken stones from the Patta lands measuring an extent of 2.38.5 hectares in S.No.12/2 of Pudhupatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 08.08.2011, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 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 first resp...

V. Thirumurugan and Another Vs. Rajsriya Automobile Industries Pvt. Lt ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.3.2012 made in C.A.No.789 of 2011 in C.P.No.173 of 2001.) (PRAYER: Appeals against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.3.2012 made in C.A.Nos.785 and 786 of 2011 in C.A.Nos.649 and 650 of 2011 respectively in C.P.No.173 of 2001.) P. JYOTHIMANI, J. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals are as under: M/s.Uma Maheshwari Mills Limited was wound up by an order of this Court dated 2.1.2006 in C.P.No.173 of 2001 filed by M/s.Upasana Finance Limited and thereafter the assets vested in the Official Liquidator. 2. One of the secured creditors, to wit Indian Overseas Bank, the second respondent in O.S.A.No.179 of 2012, has initiated action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, "the SARFAESI Act") by attaching the company's factory premises and taking possession of the same. 3. The asse...