Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-07-2011
1. Appeal Suit (First Appeal) is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 in O.S.No.83 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Court-cum- Fast Track Court No.5, Coimbatore at Thiruppur.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:(a) The suit property originally belonged to the first defendant. On 9.5.1991, the first defendant entered into a lease agreement of vacant site with one Chidambara Bharathi, who is the brother of the plaintiff. The said Chidambara Bharathi took possession of the vacant site and put up building and converted the property into a dyeing factory by investing several lakhs of rupees including permission from the Pollution Control Board and other authorities. The plaintiff also became the partner in the said dyeing factory run by his brother Chidambara Bharathi under the name and style of Vaanavil Dyeing. They have formed another dyeing factory in the nearby S.F. No. and running the present dyeing factory in the suit property through their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-20-2011
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the rcords of the 1st respondent dated 02.04.2004 made in file No.9(3)/96/E1 and also dated 02.07.1996 made in file lNo.9(2)/93/E1 and quash the said order of the first respondent dated 02.04.2004 and 02.07.1996 and consequently direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of payment of terminal benefits that he was in service till he attained the age of superannuation and to pay all the arrears of back wages, pension, gratuity, etc., taking into account that he was in service till he attain the age of superannuation. 2. The case of the petitioner as given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows: The petitioner was selected and appointed as Deputy General Manager in 1998 in the respondent Corporation and he wa sposted in various places. A minor punishment was imposed on the petitioner on 26.06.1994 for a lapse said to have taken pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-12-2011
1.The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing to prohibiting the respondents from charging electricity tax at 5% on Maximum Demand Charges from the month of October 2007 onwards, and thus render justice. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, and is consumer of electricity. The petitioner obtained High Tension Power connection under tariff 1 as per the schedule to the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978. 3. The High Tension Service number allotted to the petitioner is 244. The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted Act 4 of 1962, to levy tax on consumption of electricity energy on certain categories of consumption in the state of Madras. Under Section 3(b) of the said 'Act' electricity tariff was calculated at the rate mentioned therein in respect of High Tension supply. The tax was subsequently enhanced to 35%. This act continued to be in force till 30.04.1979. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-18-2011
ORDER1. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to dispose of the matter are recapitulated below.2.1. The writ petitioner was declared as an institution deemed to be a university as per Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for brevity, "UGC Act") in August, 2002 and it is stated to have campuses and courses under its ambit situated at Chennai and Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh. As per the decision in a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court in Viplav Sharma v. Union of India (W.P.(Civil) No.142 of 2006), wherein the Supreme Court considered a dispute regarding the functioning of deemed universities all over India, the petitioner/University was categorised under 'B' category, whose recognition was made subject to review.2.2. On 28.8.2007, the petitioner has sent a proposal to the Ministry of Human Resource Development for creating a new campus in Tiruchirapalli to house a medical college and an engineering college under it as off-campus institutions. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-04-2011
1. The petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.8741 and 9385 of 2011 have been filed by the first and second accused in Crime No.203 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal.2.The averments in the petitions are as follows:(i) The case has been registered against the petitioners/A1 & A2 and others under Crime No.203 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 387 and 420 I.P.C.(ii) The property bearing D.No.41/67, Welwyn inn Cottage, Kodaikanal town, Dindigul District, is originally belongs to one John Tapp and he bequeathed the property to his legal heirs by a will dated 09.10.1939 and the same was probated vide order dated 16.12.1941 in O.P.No.58 of 1941 on the file of the District Judge, Madurai.(iii) On 24.04.1989, the said property has been purchased by Bhagchand Uttamchand Galada/A1 and his other family members from the legal heirs of John Tapp vide registered sale deeds. The patta is also stands in their names.(iv) In the above said property, there were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-04-2011
1. Whether posing of a political repartee on the Twitter by a sitting Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir State can invite the wrath of the process of law at Madurai? and Whether the petitioner's complaint to the Inspector General of Police, South Zone should be wetted by inviting opinion of the Attorney General of India are the questions to be answered in this criminal original petition.2.This criminal original petition came to be posted on being specially ordered before this Court. Heard the counsels for all the parties.3.The petitioner claims to be a practicing Advocate in this High Court. He has filed the original petition seeking for a direction to get a legal opinion from the Attorney General of India / Advocate General of Tamil Nadu relatable to the locus standi of the criminal complaint dated 02.09.2011 on the file of the third respondent Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and to register a case according to law.4.When this criminal original petition was filed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-23-2011
Mother-in-law has filed the suit against the son-in-law, for a judgment and decree, to declare that she is the only heir of her daughter Muniyendra. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, by judgment and decree in O.S.No.700/2000, the learned Principal District Munsif, Gudiyatham, granted a decree, as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant/son-in-law preferred an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the decision, stated supra. Assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees, the defendant has preferred this second appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed as per their litigative status in the lower Court. 3. The detailed pleadings are as follows:- According to the plaintiff, her daughter Muniyendra was employed as a Typist in Excise department in the office of the Tahsildar, at Gudiyatham. Her husband/defendant murdered Muniyendra and he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-2011
These three writ petitions were the fall out of the earlier writ petitions filed before this Court by the members of Thirumalapuram Nadars Uravinmurai Sangam. The first writ petition (W.P.(MD)No.3610 of 2006) herein was filed by one Pandiveeran seeking to challenge the order dated 30.09.2004 passed by the second respondent and for a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders after holding an enquiry into the affairs of Thirumalapuram Nadars Uravinmurai Society with registration No.177/98 to ensure the society being administered in accordance with bylaws as well as the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The writ petition was admitted on 24.4.2006. Pending the writ petition, no interim order was granted. On notice, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 19.06.2006. 2.W.P.(MD)No.8249 of 2006 was filed by one Mariappan seeking for a direction to the first respondent to consider his representation dated 14.5.2006 and to take ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-04-2011
COMMON ORDER1. As the common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, common order is being passed. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from W.P.No.10847 of 2010. 2 The petitioners in all these writ petitions are Secondary Grade teachers working in various schools in the State of Tamilnadu. The petitioners in order to acquire higher educational qualification applied to the District Educational Officer in the district and the teachers employed in Corporation Schools applied to the Educational Officer of the Corporation for permission to join in the Distance Education Course called the Distance mode conducted by SASTRA University, Tanjavur. SASTRA University is a Deemed University recognised by University Grants Commission in the year 2001. The University is also approved by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE). The Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in 131st meeting held on 11.04.2007 also granted conditional recognition for awarding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-2011
ORDER1. This matter came to be listed on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 12.1.2011. The Writ Petition is yet to be admitted. However, Mrs.Jeyakumari, learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation takes notice for the respondent.2. The Writ Petitioner challenges an order passed under Section 45-A of the ESI Act dated 8.7.2010 by the respondent. By the impugned order, the liability on the petitioner was fixed for the period from 1.6.2005 to 31.3.2006. It is claimed that the petitioner company has paid labour charges to the non-coded contractors and also paid contingency charges. For the balance sums of money, after a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, ESI Corporation determined the amount due and payable on the escaped contribution. The amount due from the company was fixed at Rs.61,74,211/-. Since already a sum of Rs.98,509/- was paid, the principal employer namely the petitioner was directed to pay balance of Rs.60,75,702/-. It is again...
Tag this Judgment!