Chennai Court June 2012 Judgments
The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. the Presiding ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records dated 24.05.2006 in I.D.No.623/1999 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same.O R D E R1. This writ petition is filed by the State owned Transport Corporation having its Headquarters at Chennai. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge the award dated 24.05.2006 passed in I.D.No.623 of 1999 by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the first respondent herein.2. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent workman without backwages, but with continuity of service.3. The writ petition was admitted on 09.06.2008. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the second respondent workman filed two applications, one for vacating the interim order and another for grant of wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By ...
Tag this Judgment!C.S.Veeramani Vs. the Director National Institute of Technical Teacher
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to allot the contract to the petitioner for running of canteen at the first respondent institute for the year 2012-2013 and forbearing the first respondent from allotting the contract to the third respondent.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that he had submitted his tender for running a canteen in the first respondent Institute, for the year 2011-2012. The tender was held, on 22.7.2011, and it had been opened on the same day. The Tender Committee had confirmed the tender in favour of the third respondent, on 23.8.2011.3. It had been further stated that even though the petitioner had submitted his tender, it had not been considered by the Tender Committee. However, the third respondent had been given the contract to run the canteen, ...
Tag this Judgment!K.Jayaraman Vs. T.Lakshmikantha Bharathidasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in CMP No.1213 of 2011 in A.S.No.301 of 2011 dated 23.11.2011 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 23.11.2011, passed in CMP No.1213 of 2011 in A.S.No.301 of 2011 by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. Despite printing the name of the respondent, no one appeared on his behalf.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect, that as a plaintiff he obtained a decree in the trial Court, as against which the respondent herein preferred appeal. He filed CMP No.1213 of 2011 seeking stay; whereupon, the lower Court ordered thus:"In the result the petition is hereby allowed with the condition that the petitioner/appellant have to deposit a sum of Rs.15,450/- i...
Tag this Judgment!N.R.imayavaramban Vs. P.Senthilvel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Prayer : Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the judgment in C.C.No.207 of 2002, dated 20.10.2005 of Judicial Magistrate-II, Pollachi confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore in C.A.No.176 of 2007, dated 11.07.2007 and call for the records and acquit the petitioner from all the charges.ORDER1. The respondent herein / complainant had filed a case in C.C.No.202 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore, against the revision petitioner / accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the accused had received a sum of Rs.25,000/-, on 02.03.1998, as a loan, agreeing to pay the said amount with interest. In order to discharge the liability of the said loan amount, he had issued a cheque on 02.01.2001 for a sum of Rs.42,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore bearing cheque No.900886. The said cheque was presented on 02.01.2001 f...
Tag this Judgment!R.Chakravarthy Vs. the Kadayam Village Panchayat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the order of termination dated 28.09.2007 passed by the 1st respondent herein in its proceedings Ka.Voo.Na.Ka.No.28/2007 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits available in accordance with law.O R D E R1. Heard both sides.2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order dated 28.09.2007 issued by the first respondent Village Panchayat and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the first respondent Panchayat to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits.3. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that his case was considered in the light of the earlier order passed by this Court and it was found that he cannot be retained in service, as he failed to discha...
Tag this Judgment!G.Surya Vs. the General Manager and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to grant education loan to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.11,02,200/-.O R D E R1. 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 fourth respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, for the educational loan, without the petitioner having to furnish immovable property security.2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 had submitted that the application of the petitioner has not been rejected, till date. However, if the petitioner is prepared to accept a lesser amount, without furnishing the necessary immovable property security, it would be open to him to make an appropriate request to the fourth respondent by way of a fresh application. On such application being submitted the fourth re...
Tag this Judgment!N.Rajan. Vs. Dr.Chiranjeevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23/73 and 1 of 1980 against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2011 passed by the learned VI Judge (VII Judge i/c), Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A.No.365 of 2011 in confirming the order and decree dated 03.06.2011 passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCOP No.139 of 2010.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2011 passed by the learned VI Judge (VII Judge i/c), Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A.No.365 of 2011 in confirming the order and decree dated 03.06.2011 passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCOP No.139 of 2010, this civil revision petition has been focussed.2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts, in a few ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. the Presi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the award made in I.D.No.1 of 2004 dated 25.04.2007 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.O R D E R1. The writ petition is filed by the Management of the State owned Transport Corporation having its Headquarters at Dharmapuri. In this writ petition, they have challenged the award dated 25.04.2007 passed in I.D.No.1 of 2004, by the first respondent Labour Court, Salem.2. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent workman without backwages and attendant benefits, but with service continuity, in the post of Driver.3. The writ petition was admitted on 19.06.2008. Pending the writ petition, initially an order of interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the workman filed an application in M.P.No.3 of 2008 seeking payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Maheswari Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
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 respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 24.4.2008 filed against the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide 193/2004 dated 27.12.2004 within the time frame fixed by this Honourable Court.O R D E R1. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that a communication, dated 26.5.2008, had been issued by the office of the first respondent, stating that the appeal filed by the petitioner had been admitted. However, no order had been passed, by the first respondent, in the said appeal, till date. Therefore, the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal, dated 24.4.2008, filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 26.5.2004, within the time frame fixed by this Court.2. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respon...
Tag this Judgment!K.Balakrishnan Vs. Tmt.Gunasundari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the Principal District Court, Namakkal, in I.A.No.15 of 2012 in unfilled I.A.No.....of 2012 in O.S.No.154 of 2010.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the Principal District Court, Namakkal, in I.A.No.15 of 2012 in O.S.No.154 of 2010, this revision petition has been filed.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court.3. The long and short of the germane facts in a few broad stroke can be encapsulated thus:(i) The respondent herein-Gunasundari filed the suit for partition as against five defendants. It so happened that D1 to D3 were set ex-parte. D4 and D5 filed the memo expressing no objection for passing the decree; whereupon preliminary decree was passed.(ii) Subsequently, I.A.No.15 of 2012 was filed by the defendant No.1 to get the delay of 240 days condoned in filing the application under Ord...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »