Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad281
(1) These appeals are directed against the order of Srinivasan J. in W.P. 123 and 124 of 1961 in which the prayers were for the issue of a writ of certiorari and consequent writ of mandamus respectively. The prior facts required for a consideration of these two appeals are briefly the following:The appellant Mrs. Nesamoney Daniel was employed as a teacher in the Government aided Primary School, Pannimade estate, Annamalais. Under the rules issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the appellant in her capacity as a teacher of a primary school, was obliged to take an insurance policy on her life. As instructed by the Life Insurance Corporation, she presented herself for medical examination, to one Dr. K.V. Mathai, M.B.B.S. the third respondent in the two writ petitions, who was at that time employed by the estate, in which the teacher was also employed. Sometime later, she received a communication from the Life Insurance Corporation stating that the report of the third respondent show...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1977Mad310; (1977)1MLJ182
1. Thiru M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, is the petitioner in the criminal revision case as well as in the criminal miscellaneous petition. The revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge appointed under S. 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, disposing of Cri. M. P. No. 2384 of 1976 in C. C. No. 27 of 1976. The prayer in Cri. M. P. No. 2384 of 1976 was to discharge the petitioner under S. 239 of the Cri. P. C., 1973. By the order sought to be revised the prayer was refused. Cri. M. P. No. 429 of 1977 purports to be under S. 482 of the Cri. P. C., 1973, and the prayer therein is that the proceedings of the Special Judge in C. C. No. 27 of 1976 on his file be quashed.2. The arguments advanced in the revision as well as in the criminal miscellaneous petition were the same and the revision case and the criminal miscellaneous petition are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The Acts with which we are concerned are the I.P.C., th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1876
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. Thiru M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, is the petitioner in the criminal revision case as well as in the criminal miscellaneous petition. The revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge appointed Under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, disposing of Cri. M. P. No. 2384 of 1976 in C. C. No. 27 of 1976. The prayer in Cri. M. P. No. 2384 of 1976 was to discharge the petitioner Under Section 239 of the Cri. P. C., 1973. By the order sought to be revised the prayer was refused, Cri. M. P. No. 429 of 1977 purports to be Under Section 482 of the Cri. P. C., 1973, and the prayer therein is that the proceedings of the Special Judge in C. C. No. 27 of 1976 on his file be quashed.2. The arguments advanced in the revision as well as in the criminal miscellaneous petition were the same and the revision case and the criminal miscellaneous petition are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The Acts with which w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1977Mad192
1. This petition is filed by Mr. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Notification No. SO-74(E) dated 3-2-1976, issued by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms, Government of India, under S. 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1952, and quash the same. The affidavit filed in support of this petition, after setting out the history of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which was running the Government from 1967 upto 31st January 1976, refers to the proclamation issued by the President of India on 31-1-1976 under Art. 356 of the Constitution of India assuming to himself the functions of the Government of the State of Tamil Nadu and the powers of the Government of the State, suspending the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Council of Ministers in the State and dissolving the Legislative Assembly. The Proclamation im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1927Mad1; (1926)51MLJ529
C.V. Kumaraswami Sastri, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Devadoss, J., in S.A. No. 100 of 1923. The 2nd defendant applied to the District Court of Kistna to be adjudicated an insolvent on the 24th of January, 1918. On the 31st of January, 1918 the District Court transferred the petition to the Official Receiver, the 1st defendant. The adjudication order was made on the 15th of July, 1918 and the Official Receiver put the property in dispute to sale at an auction held on the 25th of August 1918, and executed a sale deed on the 12th of September, 1919. Defendants 3 to 5 are the purchasers under the sale deed. The plaintiff who is the son of the 2nd defendant sued for a declaration that the sale by the Official Receiver is invalid, and for a partition and delivery to him of his share. He alleged that the debts contracted by his father were for illegal and immoral purposes not binding on him and that even if the sale is valid his interest would not be affe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1991)IILLJ92Mad
ORDERDr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. The short, but meaningful, question which we are called upon to decide at this stage, is regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to deal 'service matters' after the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act, for short) with effect from 1st November, 1985 and in particular as to 'who' are the persons who are required to approach only the 'Tribunal' for the adjudication of disputes concerning their services and to whom the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is no longer available for the adjudication of those disputes. The question arises in the following circumstances : 2. A number of writ petitions came to be filed in this Court, which are still pending adjudication, seeking the issue of certiorarified mandamus to quash the letter dated 15th April, 1989 written by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Madras (hereinafter referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1991)2MLJ424
Mishra, J.1. The petitioner, who was an Assistant Executive Engineer, in the Public Works Department, filed W.P. No. 569 of 1984 in this Court, questioning the validity of the order of the first respondent-State Government dismissing him from service. A charge memo had been issued to him on 10.5.1979 calling upon him to show cause, followed by an inquiry by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Coimbatore Division, who submitted his report on 7.11.1979. On receipt of this report, the State Government found certain defects in the proceedings and ordered accordingly for a fresh inquiry. The inquiry this time was entrusted to the personal Assistant to Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Coimbatore Nilgiris Circle, who submitted his report on 6.3.1980. Acting upon the said report, the first respondent came to the provisional conclusion that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. Accordingly, a second show cause notice calling upon him to offer his explana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
S. Manikumar, J. 1. The petitioner belongs to Indian Postal Service. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V.Gopinath reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351, Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of Charge Memorandum No.11-02/2011-Vig.(P.11), dated 16.07.2013, were not approved by the Hon'ble Minister, a mandatory requirement under Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Tribunal ought to have granted the reliefs, sought for in the Original Application. He raised further grounds that the petitioner was not supplied with additional documents; though the names of certain witnesses were mentioned in the charge memo, they were not examined; the inquiry officer, hastily short-circuited the procedure; and his report has not been authenticated by the competent authority, as per the CCS (CCA) Rules. 2. The Assistant Direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2002)2MLJ15
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer in the main writ petition is for certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Charge No. 15 of 2001, dated 30.8.2001 and quash the same.2. The prayer in the writ miscellaneous petition, W.M.P. No. 28223 of 2001, is to stay all further proceedings in charge No. 15/2001, dated 30.8.2001 of the second respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition. In this writ miscellaneous petition, on 12.10.2001, D. Murugesan, J. on being prima facie satisfied, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena , wherein it has been held, 'that where criminal as well as disciplinary actions were grounded on the same facts, the stay of disciplinary action would be justified', granted stay of further proceedings in charge No. 15 of 2001, dated 30.8.2001, of the second respondent pending further orders.3. W.M.P. No. 32054 of 2001 has been f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad735; 173Ind.Cas.251; (1937)2MLJ189
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal is from an order passed by Gentle, J., on two applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act praying for an order restraining the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, by a writ of prohibition from conducting or holding or proceeding with an enquiry into the conduct of the two applicants. The appellant was the applicant in No. 349 of 1937. The order passed by Gentle, J., covered the contentions of both of the applicants which were identical. An interim injunction had been granted on the 8th February. Gentle, J., by his order dissolved that injunction, discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the applications.2. The appellant is an Assistant Commissioner of Salt and Customs, Central Division, Madras, to which office he was appointed on the 16th March, 1936, before which date he was Inspector of Salt and Customs, Negapatam. Certain charges had been made against the appellant and an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classific...
Tag this Judgment!