Chennai Court March 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.
Saraswathi Ammal Vs. M.Manohar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
ORDER1. This contempt petition arose out of an order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3717 of 2010 dated 24.03.2010. It is stated that the respondent, viz., Superintendent of Police, Madurai District had flouted the orders of this Court, thereby committed contempt of Court.2. When the matter came up on 22.02.2011, the learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the respondent. On notice from this Court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 18.03.2011. Since a reference was made to an order dated 18.10.2011 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14871 of 2010, connected papers were directed to be circulated by the Registry. Accordingly, the Registry has circulated the papers relating to the Crl.O.P.3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner earlier moved the District Munsif Court, Tirumangalam in O.S.No.219 of 2000, seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with her peaceful enjoyment of the property ...
Venugopal Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Labour.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
These three writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the P.G.A.I.A.Nos.17,16 and 18 of 2006 dated 25.6.2007 respectively by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (Joint Commissioner of Labour), Madurai and quash the same and to further direct the respondent to pay Rs.1,40,450/-, Rs.77,380/- with interest to the first two writ petitioners and to pay interest to the third writ petitioner as per the order made in P.G.Case Nos.18, 20 and 19 of 2004, dated 3.4.2006 respectively by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.COMMON ORDER1. The three writ petitions were filed by three employees of the second respondent Management. In these three writ petitions, the challenge is to the order passed by the first respondent viz., Joint Commissioner of Labour cum the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act made in PGA Nos.1...
Tamilnadu Tourism Development Vs. Kasiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the order passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.526/1998 dated 24-11-2006 and quash the same.ORDER1. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society. In this Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge an award passed by the 2nd respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.526 of 2004 dated 24.11.2006. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 13.10.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, an interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner shall pay the entire backwages within a period of 10 weeks or to pay the last drawn wages till the disposal of the Writ Petition. Subsequently, the said order was modified by a further order dated 29.7.2009 to the effect that the backwages should be deposited with the Labour Court within f...
Tamil Nadu Bee-keepers Welfare Association. Vs. the Government of Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
COMMON ORDER1. The petitioner in W.P.5377 of 2007 is a Tamil Nadu Bee-Keepers Welfare Association claiming to have a registration No.22, atvVettuvenni, Marthandam in Kanyakumari District. In this Writ Petition, they have sought for a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to dispose of their representation dated 5.12.2005 and for a consequential direction to the 4th respondent Bank to forbear from resorting to any coercive action for recovery of money from the members of the petitioner association as per list enclosed to the typed set of papers. In the list enclosed at page 12 of the typed set, they have given the names of 21 members along with the name of the Village.2. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in the affidavit was that the association has availed loan of Rs.30 Lakhs in the year 2003 from the 4th respondent Bank for the purpose of improving infrastructure for setting up apiary units and marketing the produce and for purchase of vehicle for the use. After sanction...
Ms.Foodlever India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Senior Inspecting Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
Prayer: 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 pertaining to the letter, dated 12.1.2012 in F.No.1/2012/FSSAI/CIIN-IMPORT issued by the first respondent and quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to clear the goods covered by 5660421 dated 5.1.2012, if they conform to the standards laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of importing and distribution of chocolates and other related products. The petitioner company had imported 18000 kilograms of dark compound chocolates, from Singapore, vide Bill of Entry No.5660421, dated 5.1.2012, and had presented the same for assessment, before the second respondent. The second respondent had instructed his officers to physic...
T.R.Nelson Vs. the Director General of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 08.08.2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District confirmed by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.10.2009 and the Reviewing Authority dated 12.04.2010 and seeks to set aside the same with a consequential direction to reinstate him in service.2. When the matter came up on 07.04.2011, this Court directed notice on admission. It is seen from the records that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.38 of 2009 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Poodhapandi Police Station. While the petitioner was working as Head Constable at Eathamozhi Police Station, he was accused of going to the house of one Anitha. He gave Rs.50/- to her husband and sent him to the TASMAC shop. On knowing that Anitha and her 12 year old daughter were alone in the house and preparing food, he entered the house and behaved in an indecent fashion and compelled her to have se...
Management Vs. the Presiding Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.83 of 2000 and quash its order dated 10.11.2006.ORDER1. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner management seeking to challenge an award passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.83 of 2000. By the impugned award, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination given to the 2nd respondent and directed his reinstatement in any other alternate employment or in a supernumerary post together with backwages for the period of non-employment2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 20.6.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, interim stay was granted on the same day. Subsequently the workman filed M.P.Nos.2 and 3 3 of 2007 seeking to vacate the interim order and also payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.3. In the affidavit filed in support of Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.No.3 of 2007, the 2nd respondent wo...
Rams Exim Vs. Deputy Director.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to draw samples from the petitioner's consignment now lying with the CFS (Container Freight Station) Park, Tuticorin and sent them to the third respondent, I.e., the King Institute of Preventive Medicine & Research, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 for its analytical examination relating to 'SUDAN IV.ORDER1. The petitioner is the proprietor of Rams Exims at Kathivakkam, Chennai. He has come forward with this writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to draw samples from the petitioner's consignment now lying with the CFS (Container Freight Station) Park, Tuticorin and sent them to the third respondent, viz., the King Institute of Preventive Medicine & Research, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 for its analytical examination relating to 'SUDAN IV'.2. In the writ petition, notice regarding admission was granted. Pendin...
C.Lalitha Raj Vs. the Assistant General Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Mandamus,to direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to operate the Savings Bank No. 10948453813 maintained with the 4th respondent.O R D E R1. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.03.2011 from the post of Maternity Nurse from the Government Hospital. The petitioner is getting pension of Rs.10,850.00 p.m. and is maintaining savings account with the State Bank of India, Vaniyambadi Branch. The account number of the petitioner is 10948453813.2. The petitioner tried to withdraw the amount from her savings bank account through ATM, when she was instructed to approach the branch office, though balance outstanding in her name was Rs.7,53,730.90/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty and Paise Ninety only).3. On enquiry by petitioner, it was revealed that the account had been attached by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Ambur Branch, Am...
R. Saraswathi Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner Land Refor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
(Delivered by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)1. Undaunted by the order of dismissal passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 34476 of 2005, dated 07.6.2011, the writ petitioners have preferred the present Writ Appeal.2. From the materials, it is seen that the second respondent, viz., Assistant Commissioner, Urban land Ceiling, Coimbatore initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 [For short, 'the Act'] in respect of the property held by Ramasamy Gounder in Survey No. 164/1C of Saravanampatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk measuring an extent of 2426 Sq.mts. Proceedings under Section 9(5) of the Act dated 18.12.1992 and notice under Section 11(5) of the Act dated 30.01.1999 were issued. Challenging the same, the writ petitioners, legal heirs of the original owner, filed the Writ Petition and also for a direction to the respondents to treat the proceedings as abated so as to enable them to get their names incorporated in the revenue records as owners ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »