Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-01-2008
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The facts involved in the cases on hand is as follows:(i) The first respondent herein is Steel Authority of India (SAIL), which is registered as a government company under the provisions of Companies Act in which 85% shares are held by the Government of India and 15% shares are held by public. The second respondent namely Salem Steel Plant (SSP) is an unit of the first respondent, which was set up by the first respondent for production of stainless steel.(ii) The first respondent issued tender notice E/08 dated 13.03.2007, hereinafter referred to as first tender, inviting sealed tenders for establishment of new Cryogenic Air Separation Plant (ASP) in the premises of Salem Steel Plant on Build-Own-Operate (BOO) basis and supply Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon gases on long term basis to steel melting shop (SMS) being put up under expansion. The first respondent appointed the fifth respondent as Consultant-cum-Project Manager. The tender floated on 13.03.2007 was opened o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-2008
Reported in : 2008BusLR908; 2009(1)CTC227; (2008)8MLJ261
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. $ 700 Billion bail out plan', 'Wall Street vanished', 'Lehman Brothers went belly up', 'Bear Stearns consumed', 'U.S. National Debt Clock runs out of digits' and 'AIG gone up in smoke' are some of the captions which have hit the headlines in recent times. All of those news items have a common denominator, called 'derivatives' and this case is all about derivatives.2. Since this appears to be the first case of its kind in India (subject to correction) where derivatives contracts are challenged as illegal and void and also since the jargon is not too familiar even to P.Ramanatha Iyer (of Law Lexicon) and Black (of Law Dictionary), a brief prelude has become necessary before we plunge into details. PRELUDE ABOUT DERIVATIVES3. 'Derivatives are time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction' said Warren Buffett, one of the world's greatest investors, who overtook Microsoft Maestro in 2008 to become the richest man in the world and who is known as the 'Sage of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-13-2008
Reported in : (2008)5MLJ261
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09.6.2005 made in O.A. No. 1027 of 2004, the petitioners, who are the Chairman, Commissioner of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti [for short, 'NVS'] functioning under the Ministry of HRD at New Delhi as well as the Deputy Director of NVS at Nongriss Hills, Shillong at Meghalaya State, have filed the present writ petition. 2. By the aforesaid order, the CAT set aside the order of termination of the first respondent dated 13.6.2003, confirmed by the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the appellate authority, and directed reinstatement of the first respondent with all consequential benefits.3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 11.10.2006 and also granted an interim stay on the same day. When the first respondent filed M.P. No. 2 of 2006 to vacate the stay order, this Court confirmed the stay and dismissed the vacate stay application. It directed the disposal of the main writ petition at an earl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-05-2008
Reported in : 2009(241)ELT338(Mad)
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. A Notification bearing No. 25 (Re-2007)/2004-2009 dated 29.08.2007 issued by the second respondent / Director General of Foreign Trade and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy - 2004 - 09 is under challenge in all these writ petitions. All the writ petitions were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are either importers or traders of betel nuts. They claim that they are in the practice of importing betel nuts in substantial quantities every year from South East Asian countries like Indonesia and Thailand. According to them, they can conveniently import the same through anyone of the ports on the Eastern Cost. But, the respondents issued the impugned Notification, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-16-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ262
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Totally two persons were tried in S.C. No. 29 of 2005 on the file of Additional Court of Sessions (Fast Track Court) Dharmapuri under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. A.2 was acquitted by the learned Trial Judge for the charge under Section 201 I.P.C. However A.1 was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C, for which he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- carrying a default sentence for the offence of murder and for causing disappearance of evidence of offence, he stands sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Therefore A.1 alone is before this Court in this appeal. The State has not challenged the acquittal of A.2 till date.2. A.1 and A.2 are the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Valarmathi respectively. The charge against the accused is that on 25.9.2002 at about 9.00 p.m. at the matrimonial home at Kottrapatti Ko...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : (2009)1MLJ7
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to set aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent in A. No. 338 of 2002 dated 05.08.2008 and direct the respondents to continue him in service and to regularize his service in the post of Junior Assistant.2.The case of the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit, is as under:The petitioner's father, by name, I.Syed Akbar, who was employed as Head Clerk in the Principal District Munsif Court at Villupuram died on 10.11.2001, while in service. Pursuant to his father's death, the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent for compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant, as he possessed requisite qualification. After careful consideration of the application made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent herein appointed the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the Principal Sub Court at Tindivanam on compassionate grounds. In pursuance of the order of appointment, the petitioner joined duty on 07.03.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-2008
Reported in : (2008)8MLJ589
ORDERK. Kannan, J.1. Heard Mr. K. Rajkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.I. The Lis:2. The petitioners, in both the writ petitions have challenged the order of removal from their respective services as teachers whose qualifications in teacher training course from Karnataka Education Board were found to be not genuine.II. Summary of Facts:Entry into service on certificate issued by Karnataka Board:3. The facts required to be stated in certain detail to stay in focus to the relevant issues at hand are:. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11769/2004 claimed to have passed their SSLC examinations and joined the Private Teachers Training Institute called Sri Lakshmi Vidyalaya Teachers Training Institute, between the year 1979-1981. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11769 of 2004 states that he wrote the annual examination during March 1982 and certificate was issued on 24.12.1982 by the Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Educat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-02-2008
Reported in : (2008)5MLJ1146
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed to forbear the respondents from taking possession of the lands of the members of the petitioner Sangam without complying with arrangement dated 13.10.1997.2. The writ petitioner Sangam was started to protect the rights of the persons who had handed over the lands to the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (in short, 'NLC'), so as to enable it to develop its second stage of excavation. According to the petitioner Sangam, its members were called upon to receive the sums awarded for their lands acquired and to vacate and hand over the sites for the excavation. The case of the petitioner Sangam is that an understanding was reached between its members and the respondents, by which the first respondent has agreed,(i) that the Villagers will form a society for the purpose of applying for tenders so as to give employment to the farmers who had given up their lands;(ii) that the persons will be given employment initially as temporary workers and ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-01-2008
Reported in : 2009(242)ELT487(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent in W.A. No. 1562 of 2007 for quashing the Sale Order/Acceptance Letter No. MSTC/S/NLC/EA-14/2005-06/101/008 dated 1.4.2005 issued by the fifth respondent, quash the same and direct the second and third respondents to return the amount of Rs. 163,49,96,511/- after deducting the amounts already received, with interest at the rate of 18% from 30.4.2005 to the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that facts are disputed and they must be established before a court of law by adducing sufficient proof and that the writ court cannot grant the relief sought for. But, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge gave findings that the contract between the parties was void ab initio, that the appellant in W.A. No. 1488 of 2007 (respondent in the writ petition) had committed fraud and answered these questions in favour of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by that, W.A. No. 1488 of 2007 has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-16-2008
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR731]; (2008)IILLJ897Mad; (2008)3MLJ1070
S. Palanivelu, J.1. Both these writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 15.5.2002, made in W.P. No. 8 of 1996. The said writ petition was filed by N.L.C. INDCO SERVE Thozhilalar Uzhiyar Sangam, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the first respondent therein viz. the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, its men, officers, agents and servants from absorbing any contract labour or any other employee either permanently or temporarily in the first respondent Corporation without following the seniority on the basis of the date of entry in Corporation either as a contract labour or directly and consequently direct the first respondent to absorb and regularise the members of the petitioner union as employees of the first respondent Corporation with all monetary and service benefits with effect from the date of entry into service in the first respondent Corporation either as a contract labour or otherwise.2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the...
Tag this Judgment!