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.
The Principal General Manager Vs. the Central Govt. Industrial Tribuna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the Award of the first respondent passed in I.D.No.87 of 2006 dated 23.06.2008 and to quash the same as illegal.O R D E R1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner viz., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Coimbatore (for short BSNL), challenging an Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (for short CGIT) in I.D.No.87 of 2006 dated 23.06.2008 By the impugned Award, the CGIT directed reinstatement of the second respondent with 50% backwages and other consequential benefits.2. The writ petition was admitted on 15.10.2008. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the workman filed M.P.No.2 of 2009 seeking for a direction to comply with payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act). This Court vide order dated 06.07.2009 directed compliance of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act from th...
S.Kanagaraj Vs. the Superintending Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner as per representation dated 12.10.2009.ORDER1. The writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner as per representation dated 12.10.2009 .2. The petitioner is the father of one deceased Thirumalaisamy, who died at the age of 48 years as a bachelor. On 8.6.2009, the deceased Thirumalaisamy was proceeding from his house to attend his work. At that time, the E.B.Foreman was repairing the transformer located about 15 feet from the house of the deceased. When the deceased was passing by the transformer, the E.B.Foreman without taking caution, switched on the transformer. The said transformer suddenly burst and as a result the oil contained in the transformer together with other steel par...
Ms. Shanti Logistics (P) Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Tax Case Appeals against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA. 1636/ MDS/ 2010 and CO.NO.133/MDS/2010 "A" Bench, Chennai dated 10th February 2012. (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. Tax Case (Appeals) are at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Tribunal by raising following questions of law:-" 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not considering the issue raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal that the provisions of Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective or not?2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the additional evidence filed by the revenue is admissible and at the same time for holding that the assessee had not converted those additional evidence without adverting to the Chart filed at the instance of the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice?3. Whether the Tribunal is right in dismissing th...
N.Krishnamoorthy Vs. City Union Bank Rep. by Its General Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai the 2nd respondent herein made in I.D.No.396/04 dated 27.06.2006 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner with retrospective effect with all consequential monetary and attendant benefits, backwages and compensation.O R D E R1. The writ petition is filed by the workman challenging an Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Chennai (for short CGIT) in I.D.No.396 of 2004 dated 27.06.2006. By the impugned Award, the CGIT held that the workman had raised the dispute belatedly and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained and that he had failed to prove that he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act) and also the fact that he had approached t...
Rangasamy Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Gobichettipalayam to number the petition in C.M.P.CFR No.Nil of 2011 and dispose of the same on merits.ORDER1. The petitioner's father was one Mr.Padaikalam Ramasamy @ Ramaboyan. During the year 2009, Mr.Padaikalam Ramasamy was aged 90 years. According to the petitioner, on 08.01.2009 Mr.Padaikalam Ramasamy left his house for the hospital. He did not return thereafter. Subsequent enquiries of the petitioner and his family members revealed that Mr.Padaikalam Ramasamy would have fallen accidentally into a river on the same day. In this regard, a complaint was prepared to the Inspector of Police, Gopichettipalayam Police Station, on the same day, upon which, a case was registered in Crime No.161 of 2009 for man missing. The said case is under investigation. During investigation, the whereabouts of Mr.Padaikalam Ramasamy could not be ascertained and his fate is not kno...
The Superintending Engineer Vs. the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the relevant records of the first respondent's impugned notice in TNEO/F.E. Tax/Petitions/D.No.1656/2009, dated 1.12.2009 and to quash the same as illegal and without authority of law and jurisdiction and to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the Appeals in TNEO.P.Nos.47 to52 of 2009, filed by the petitioner pending before it, in accordance with law, without insisting upon the Government of Tamil Nadu as one of the parties, in the Appeal proceedings.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned notice, dated 1.12.2009, issued by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the Appeals filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, without insisting upon the Government of Tamil Nadu to be impleaded as one of the parties in the Appeal proceeding...
S.K. Mani Vs. the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the month of December 2010 within a stipulated period of time.O R D E R1. On the oral request of petitioner, the legal heir of the petitioner is ordered to be brought on record.2. Though the petitioner is stated to be dead, the only relief claimed in this writ petition is that statutory appeal filed by petitioner with the 2nd respondent in the month of December, 2010, has not been disposed of.3. Learned counsel for the respondents points out, that the appeal could not be numbered and decided, because there was objection by private respondents to the relief claimed by petitioner.4. This cannot be the ground to keep the appeal pending, as the appeal being statutory, the respondent no.2 is under legal obligation to decide the appeal in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of ...
Sabarathinam Vs. the Secretary Industries Department
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records in Rc.No.E1/1537/01 order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the third respondent herein and quash the same and further directing the third respondent to give employment to the petitioner's son Mr.Sathish Kumar as per his qualification within a stipulated time.ORDER1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records in Rc.No.E1/1537/01 order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the third respondent herein and quash the same and further to direct the third respondent to give employment to the petitioner's son Mr.Sathish Kumar as per his qualification within a stipulated time. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims the benefit of the G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department dated 29.6.1978 which entitles employment assistance to the members of the families...
Union of India, Rep. by Director General and ors. Vs. the Registrar, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 29.04.2011 in O.A.Nos.412 & 463 of 2010, on the file of the 1st Respondent, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same.COMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are inter-connected, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.4.2011 in O.A.Nos.412 and 463 of 2010, wherein and whereunder the Original Applications filed by the contesting Respondents for promotion as Postal Service Group 'B' Officers and absorption were allowed, the Union of India has come forward with these writ petitions.3. The facts leading to filing of the Original Applications and the Writ Petitions, in brief, are as follows :-According to the contesti...
R. Nagappan Vs. M/S. MedIndia Hospitals, Rep. by Dr.T.S.Chandrasekar
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2012
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of compensation of Rs.9,60,000/- for loss of life and Rs.40,000/- for mental agony. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dated 29.10.2009 in C.C.No.09/2005. The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 20.3.2012, 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 :-) TMT.VASUGI RAMANAN, MEMBER : 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction to pay a sum of compensation of Rs.9,60,000/- for loss of life and Rs.40,000/- for mental agony. 3. The complainant admitted his wife Mrs.Nagavalli aged 48 years at the hosp...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »