Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Rule Part I (iii)-3 of the APCA Service Rules, 1997 as null and void and unconstitutional as far as the existing retirement age of 58 years concerned and direct the first respondent to implement G.O.Ms.No.147 Finance (HRM-IV) Finance Department dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the members of petitioner union thereby fixing the retirement age as 60 years on superannuation with retrospective effect invoking the provisions of Rule Part II(i)-28 and Rule Part II (ix)-9 of APCA Service Rules, 1997 duly reinstating the members of the petitioner union those who were relieved from service at the age of 58 years into service and permit them to draw back wages, continuity of service with all other attended benefits thereon within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. S. Manikumar, J. 1. Claiming himself to be the President of RICA ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2013(2)LLN195
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the fifth respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his proceedings No.A/23456/GS/DIR/CAO/A-7(A) dated 06.05.2010 and proceedings No.A/23456/GS/DIR/CAO/A-7(A) dated 17.06.2010 and also the order of the fourth respondent bearing No.PU/Estt/NT10/2010-11/48 dated 21.05.2010 including the resolution of the third respondent bearing No.2010.103.47 and quash the same and direct the respondents to conduct direct recruitment for appointment to the post of Registrar of the third respondent viz. Pondicherry University and to consider the petitioner for such recruitment.) The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the 5th respondent dated 6.5.2010 and 7.6.2010 and the order of the 4th respondent dated 21.5.2010 by which the 6th respondent was permanently absorbed in the 4th respondent University in the post...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23. 01-2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Suit No.562 of 2007 M.C.Jayasingh ...Plaintiff Vs 1. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI) rep.by its Managing Director, Kanchanbagh Hyderabad 500 058.2. Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills Road Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 033.3. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited Ali Towers, IV Floor, 55, Greams Road Chennai 600 006.4. Cancer Institute (W.I.A) (Regional Cancer Centre), Canal Bank Road Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. ...Defendants ----- Plaint under Order VII, Rule 1, CPC, read with Order IV, Rule of the Original Side Rules, Section 108 read with Section 50(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Section 22(2)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. ----- For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Sundar For Defendant-1 : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For Defendants 2&3 : Mr.C.Manishankar For Defendant-4 : Mr.N.L.Rajah ----- JUDGMENT This is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!