Chennai Court November 2015 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.P. Natesan Vs. The Department of Industries, rep. by its Assistant S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing thesecond respondentto provide compassionate ground employment to the petitioner under the category of Land looser in the Sivaganga Graphite Beneficiation Plant based on the Land Acquisition order 2/84-85 dated 26.06.1984 and 12/86-87 dated 30.06.1987 by considering his representationdated 28.08.2015 within the period stipulated by this Court.) 1. The family of the petitioner is a land loser. His lands were acquired by the respondents for setting up a plant in the name and style of Sivaganga Graphite Beneficiation Plant. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be considered for appointment as the livelihood of the petitioner was deprived due to the land acquisition of the respondents. In this connection, the petitioner has made a representation on 28.08.2015 and the said representation is said to be pending for consideration by the respondents. Hence, ...
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory and Another ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 27.07.2015 made in E.P.S.R.No.12892 of 2015 in A.C.P.(Kotak) No.390 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.) Challenging the order passed in E.P.S.R.No.12892 of 2015 in A.C.P.(Kotak) No.390 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore, the decree holder has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The only point that arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is with regard to jurisdiction of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore for entertaining the Execution Petition filed in the arbitration proceeding in A.C.P.(Kotak) No.390 of 2012. 3. According to the petitioner, the District Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petition. In spite of the fact that the value of the award is only Rs.1,60,082/-, the District Court returned the Execution Petition for want of jurisdiction stating that under s...
P. Pandian Vs. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpora ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated06.10.2015 and direct the first respondent to register the petitioner's wife Jesintha rani as his nominee to make entry in the service register within the stipulated time.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent Corporation. He retired from service on 31.07.2015. According to him, he married to one Jesintha Rani and the name is also brought on record as legal heir for the purpose of giving certain benefits that are payable to her on the demise of the petitioner. It is stated that the parents of the petitioner are not alive. Hence, the petitioner wants his wife to be brought on in the service record. In this regard, he made a representation dated 06.10.2015 directing the first respondent to register his wife Jesintha rani as his nominee by making entry in the service register. Since the said represe...
R. Ramakrishnan and Others Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporat ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to dispose of the petitioner's appeal dated 27.07.2015 within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court preferred against the punishment of increment cut for 18 months vide cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner by the second respondent vide proceedings in Ref.Sathu:A5:3447, Legal Department dated 04.02.2013. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal dated 01.06.2015 within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing thefirst respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal dated 15.05.2015 preferred by the petitioner against the punishment of increment cut for a period of two years with cumulative effect imposed by the General ...
S. Vijay Bhaskar Vs. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in its proceedings Na.Ka.No.A3/870/2014 dated 12.01.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner back into service with all attendant benefits.) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent. He was dismissed from service on 12.01.2015 by the respondent. This writ petition is filed for quashing the aforesaid dismissal order dated 12.01.2015. The dismissal order states that same is appealable to the Regional Manager, Tirunelveli. It is stated that the petitioner shall file such appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of dismissal order. However, the petitioner has not filed an appeal within the stipulated time. Now, he challenges the dismissal order, before this Court contending that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 2. I am not inclined to go into the...
The Management of M/s. Simpson and Company Ltd. (Addisons Paints and C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Prayer: Memoranda of Writ Appeals filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 23.7.2004 in Writ Petition Nos.19459 and 29868 of 2002 respectively.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. The disputes between the Management and Workmen of M/s. Addisons Paints and Chemicals Limited resulted in a reference to the Labour Tribunal by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O. Ms. No.2313, Labour Department, dated 2.11.1984. Unfortunately, the said dispute has dragged on for more than 20 years in one form or the other. 2. The necessary facts may be set out only to complete the sequence of events. The reference order was assailed by the Management before the High Court, resulting in a direction for the Tribunal to decide the preliminary issue first. The industrial award was passed on 29.12.1986, which inter alia opined that salesmen were not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act...
S. Chinnaiyan and Another Vs. The Deputy Collector/Deputy Manager, Tam ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.8027/2013/RV-2 dated 29.08.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioners into services of the respondent.) Common Order: 1. The petitioners are the employees of the respondent. They were dismissed from service on the ground that they were responsible for the shortage money to the tune of Rs.7,03,390/-. 2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with, at the stage of admission stage itself, as the said orders were passed, without there being any charge sheet followed by an enquiry. Thus, it is violative of principles of natural justice. 3. A perusal of the impugned orders indicate that nowhere it reflects that an enquiry was held before passing the impugned order. The ...
S.K. Sundaram Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Erode District and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings No.Mu.Mu.75574/88/U2, dated 08.12.1990, and consequential orders in Nos.Mu.Mu.1675/2008/U4, dated 22.02.2008, Mu.Mu.59104/2008/U4, dated 17.11.2008 and Mu.Mu.72751/08/U4, dated 31.08.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant Patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.2.00 Cents in Old Ka.Sa.No.1123/7, New Ka.Sa.No.613/9 in Bargur Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings in Mu.Mu.75574/88/U2, dated 08.12.1990, Mu.Mu.1675/2008/U4, dated 22.02.2008, Mu.Mu.59104/2008/U4, dated 17.11.2008 and Mu.Mu.72751/08/U4, dated 31.08.2009, issued by the first respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to grant Patta in favour of the petitio...
S. Paneerselvam Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to grant the petitioner 4th and 5th review benefits and to revise his pay in the post of Checking Inspector with retrospective effect from 05.11.2012 in terms of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.61, Transport (c) Department dated 30.04.2015 and as per settlement dated 13.04.2015 and further directing the respondents to pay him the difference salary amount in his salary from 05.11.2012 to 30.11.2013 and to pay difference in his retirement benefits including difference in monthly pension, gratuity, leave salary, commuted value of pension and all other attendant benefits payable to him from 01.12.2013 to till date together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition lies in a narrow compass. He has sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner 4th and 5th review benefits and to revise his pay...
V. Valarmathi Vs. The Director General of Police, Chennai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Nov-25-2015
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order Ref.C.No.L3/13448/2015 dated 01.09.2015 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner under compassionate grounds to any available post according to the qualification of the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 18.06.2012 of Labour and Employment Department within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The father of the petitioner was employed as Police Constable Grade-1 in the Police Department. He died on 19.02.1999 in a road accident. He left behind him, the petitioner, her elder brother, elder sister and her mother. In these circumstances, the widow, ie., mother of the petitioner, made a request to provide compassionate appointment for her son, ie., compassionate appointment was sou...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »