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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : Jan-05-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2011
V. Periya Karuppiah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Ist Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri made in S.C. No. 229 of 2004 dated 16.11.2005 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 447 and 302 I.P.C. The accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) P.W.1 is the son of P.W.2 and Sambu, the deceased in the case. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.2. Both the families of the accused and deceased belong to Aralkundi village.(b) One day prior to the date of occurrence i.e. on 21.1.2002, the accused indulged in a quarrel with the deceased Sambu as the deceased Sambu conveyed the conversation of the accused, with her, criticizing his son-in-law Anbazhangan regarding not taking ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-11-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ARBLR271(Madras); (2008)2MLJ772
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. O.P. No. 146 of 2001 is filed under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act (Act 10 of 1940), to permit the petitioner to file the original award .dated 25.10.1999.2. O.P. No. 246 of, 2001 is filed under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act (Act 10/40) to set aside the award passed by the second respondent, being the sole Arbitrator dated 25,10.1999.3. In view of filing of the award into the Court, no order is necessary m O.P. No. 146 of 2001 and accordingly, O.P. No. 146 of 2001, is dismissed.4 The first respondent in O.P. No. 246 of 2001 is contractor, who entered into a contract in writing with the petitioner for provision of Married Accommodation for 72 LTS at Naval Air Station, Arakkonam vide contract Agreement No. CEMZ/ARK/28 of 1987-88 dated 12.11.1987. In- respect of. some difference which arose between the parties, the second respondent was appointed as a sole Arbitrator, who passed an award on 25.10.1999, directing the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-28-2008
Reported in : (2008)2MLJ703
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitioner is the owner of the vacant landed property to an extent of 1.80 acres comprised in Survey No. 5/2 at No. 117, Pandur Village, Chengelpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 30.11.2006 and the patta in respect of the property stood in the name of his vendor Mrs. Vijayalakshmi in Patta No. 409, the petitioner has applied for transfer of patta in his name. According to the petitioner, right from 1939, the predecessors in title of the petitioner have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. On 16.11.2007, some contract labourers employed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Guduvancherry, third respondent herein, have brought building materials and entered into the lands of the petitioner and started digging and made excavation, in order to erect huge transmission high-tension electric line tower. On 19.11.2007, the petitioner has sent a tel...
Tag this Judgment!