Chennai Court April 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.
M.Azeez and ors. Vs. Indian Bank, Rep by Chairman and Managing Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
These writ petitions are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that Regulation 46(2) of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 as being inconsistent and in conflict with Sections 4(6), 13 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and hence ultravires the Constitution of India and consequently strike down the same.COMMON ORDER1. Whether the Regulation framed by the Indian Bank in relation to postponement of payment of gratuity until the conclusion of the disciplinary action or criminal case as the case may be is constitutionally valid? and whether Regulation 46(2) of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 is ultravires of Section 4(6), 13 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972? is the question that arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions.2. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are either workers in the clerical cadre or officer cadre and were reachi...
Saroja Vs. the District Collector Ariyalur District and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Prayer in W.P.4153/2011:Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take action on the representation dated 14.2.2011 by allotting plots with equal frontage to both groups as per the sketch prepared by the 3rd respondent in the year 1995 in respect of the property situate in Survey No.140/5A, Valajanagaram Village, Ariyalur Taluk.Prayer in W.P.27642 to 27673 of 2011 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 4th respondent pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.A/1919/86 dated 27.05.1994 bearing Plot No.1 (W.P.27642 of 2011) Plot No.2 (W.P.27643 of 2011) Plot No.3 (W.P.27644 of 2011) Plot No.4 (W.P.27645 of 2011) Plot No.5 (W.P.27646 of 2011) Plot No.6 (W.P.27647 of 2011) Plot No.7 (W.P.27648 of 2011) Plot No.8 (W.P.27649 of 2011) Plot No.9 (W.P.27650 of 2011) Plot No.10 (W.P.27651 of 2011) Plot No.11 (W.P.27652 of 2011) Plot ...
Velu at Velusamy Vs. the State Rep.by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
These writ petitions are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that Regulation 46(2) of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 as being inconsistent and in conflict with Sections 4(6), 13 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and hence ultravires the Constitution of India and consequently strike down the same.COMMON ORDER1. Whether the Regulation framed by the Indian Bank in relation to postponement of payment of gratuity until the conclusion of the disciplinary action or criminal case as the case may be is constitutionally valid? and whether Regulation 46(2) of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 is ultravires of Section 4(6), 13 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972? is the question that arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions.2. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are either workers in the clerical cadre or officer cadre and were reachi...
A.Dorairaj Vs. K.Karumbukonar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
PRAYERCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award, dated 28.6.1994, made in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Sivagangai.JUDGMENT 1. The claimant is the appellant herein. The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,94,835/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petition. 3. The claimant was holding diploma in Electrical Engineering and was employed as Manager in M/s.Meenum Rexin Pvt. Ltd. and he was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. The claimant is injured in an accident occurred at 6.30 pm on 26.9.1992 near Ramachandran Mandapam on Madurai to Mandapam Road. The two vehicles involved in the accident are the lorry bearing Regn.No.TDZ 5587 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent insurance company an...
P. Selvaraj. Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to receive, process and consider and accord water and sewerage service connections to the premises at No.4, Perumal Koil Garden VII Lane, (Anna 4th Lane) Sowcarpet, Chennai-79 R.S.No.3668, New S.No.7854 in accordance with law and without insisting on production of Completion Certificate/No Objection Certificate.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the first and the second respondents to receive, process and consider and accord the water and sewerage connections to the premises in question, said to be belonging to the petitioner, in accordance with law, without insisting on the production of the Completion Certificate/No Objection Certificate, by ...
S.Ramanathan Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to remove the name of the petitioner from the list of history sheet rowdies pending on the file of the 2nd respondent.ORDER1. This is yet another incident where the respondent police have misused their power and had included the name of a trade union leader as an history-sheeter in the records kept by the police station.2. The petitioner, who was the President of the Indian National Trade Union Congress (for short INTUC) and was a workman in the Covanto Samalpatti Power Company, has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to remove his name from the list of the history-sheet rowdy pending with the second respondent Inspector of Police, Pochampalli police station, Krishnagiri District.3. The writ petition was admitted on 20.3.2007. On notice from this court, the second respondent has filed a counter a...
M.Dharchana Vs. the Branch Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent Bank to sanction the educational loan to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/- for the entire course of three years.O R D E R1. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent Bank to sanction the educational loan to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only), for completing the course of B.Sc. Computer Science.2. The petitioner, after completing +2 course, joined the Hindustan College of Arts and Science to undergo B.Sc Computer Science course in the academic year 2010- 2011. The petitioner had applied for educational loan with all necessary documents, i.e. Bonafide Certificate, Fee Certificate as well as certificate showing that the petitioner belongs to Most Backward Class Community (MBC).3. The Hindustan College of Arts and Science issued a certificate, disclosing tuition fee per semester ...
D.Damodharasamy Vs. State Represented by Its Deputy Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. r/w 397 of Cr.P.C., against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.496/2005 in S.C.No.32/2002 dated 27.09.2005, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Special Court), Erode.ORDER1. This revision has been preferred against the dismissal of the order dated 27.09.2005 made in Crl.M.P.No.496 of 2005 in Spl.C.C.No.32/2002. The petition in Crl.M.P.No.496 of 2005 was filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharging A4/petitioner herein from the offences under Sections 120B read with 468, 420, 409 and 467 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and Section 109 IPC in Crime No.4/AC/96/PD, F.I.R dated 3.12.1996.2. The facts of the case are as follows:(i)One Pari, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption as a informant/complainant, registered a case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The petitioner herein filed ...
T.R.Murugan Vs. K.B.Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Udhagamandalam in E.P.No.47 of 2011 in O.S.No.67 of 2005.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. A thumbnail sketch of the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:(i) As against the order of arrest passed by the Executing Court, viz., the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam in E.P.No.47 of 2011 in O.S.No.67 of 2005, the present revision is focussed on the main ground that when admittedly as per the decree holder, the Judgement Debtor/revision petitioner is having immovable property, the decree holder was not justified in seeking arrest of the judgment debtor and the court was not justified in ordering arrest in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 100 LW 431.(ii) A mere running of the eye over the cited judgment re...
M/S. Prakash Exports, Rep. by Its Partner Mr.P.Baskar Vs. the Lakshmi ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
(This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 27.03.2012, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order.) A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 1. The details of complaint in brief as follows : Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming relief for payment of Rs.43,30,956/- being the balance amount of realization of bills including Rs.5,76,684/- being the interest on the above sum at 12% and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the expenses in this regard and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with 12% interest and for costs. 2. The complainant engaged in the business of exports of textile goods to various countries and during the course of business to supply the orders obtained from Handicrafts and More Inc, having their office at No.90, Dayton Avenue, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »