Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2000)ILLJ1533Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W.P. No. 17938 of 1998, the writ-petitioner Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ranipet, prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Vellore, from in any manner continuing with the proceedings No. 3775 of 1998, dated May 19, 1998 and No. 6151 of 1997, dated July 23, 1998.2. W.P. No. 263 of 1989, has been filed , by the BHEL Thuppuravu Thozhilalar Sangam, BHEL Ltd. Ranipet, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent namely the management of BHEL, Ranipet, to implement the notification in G.O. Ms. No. 2082, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour and Employment Department, dated September 19, 1998 and also to regularise all the existing workmen employed for sweeping and scavenging and to fix them in the regular scales of pay, with effect from October 1, 1998.3. W.P. No. 20325 of 1993 has been filed by the BHEL Thozhilaga Thuppuravu Thozhilalar Sangam, praying for the iss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000(2)CTC41
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, J.1. The above three writ appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment inasmuch as these writ appeals have been filed against the same order of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.1407 of 1998, dated 19-11-1999.2. For the purpose of discussion, we intend to refer to the cause title as given in the first case i.e. Writ Appeal No.2371 of 1999.3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed Writ Petition, viz., W.P. No.1407 of 1998 against respondents 4 and 5 (respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition) and the appellant (the third respondent in writ petition), questioning the order, dated 27-2-1998, of the Executive Director of the Reserve Bank of India granted approval by virtue of powers conferred under Section 35(B)(i)(h) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as the B.R. Act) to the fifth respondent herein viz., Bharat Overseas Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the fifth respondent bank) to appoint the appellant as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(91)ECC555; (2004)1MLJ489
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the five writ petitions and the writ miscellaneous petitions therein, the petitioners have come up before us in these writ appeals. 2. All the petitioners are the export-oriented units. The Government of India has formulated an Export-Import Policy under Sec. 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Foreign Trade Act'). Under the said policy, concessions were given for imports as well as exports. On the basis of such concessions, the petitioners could import raw materials without payment of duty with the obligation to export the 'manufactured goods' from that imported raw material. The petitioners are manufacturing exporters in the sense, that they are expected to have their factories for the manufacturing of some export-material, the raw material for which is imported. This is called 'Advance Licence'. The advance licences ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2006)2MLJ382
ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. These writ petitions raise a short but an important question as to the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Admission in Professional Courses Act 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 2006), hereinafter for Brevity's sake called the 'Act'. Since common questions of law and fact are involved, we have heard all the cases together and disposing them of by this judgment.2. In W.P. No. 3951 of 2006, Minor Nishanth Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (which we are treating as the lead case), the petitioner is a Plus two student of Vidya Mandhir School, affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.), Chennai. The Tamil Nadu State Board, I.S.C. and C.B.S.C. are the three Boards which offer Plus two course in the State of Tamil Nadu.3. It has been alleged that ever since 1984, the admission to the professional colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu was governed by G.O. Ms. No. 657, dated 29.5.1984. The said Government Order prescribed admission to the profess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2006(2)CTC241; (2006)3MLJ129
P.K. Misra, J.1. The factual background as culled out from various writ petitions and the counter affidavit is as follows:-Mr. R. Nataraj has been functioning as the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, since 18.9.2004. It seems for publication in Chennai Chronicle - a supplement of the Newspaper Deccan Chroncile on 8.3.2006, which was being observed as International Womens Day, R. Nataraj was contacted by a representative of such newspaper to give his opinion regarding an ideal woman. As per the newspaper report, R. Nataraj has stated:An ideal woman is someone who manages both her personal and professional life well. In this respect, I think our chief minister J. Jayalalitha is the perfect example of the ideal woman.I think she is an icon and every woman should look up to her.Thereafter, publication of such comment in the newspaper appears to have been brought to the notice of the Election Commission. (It is claimed by Mr. A. Raja, a Minister in the Union Government, that it is he who bro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2007]288ITR225(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The petitioners are facing prosecution before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Egmore, Chennai-8 for the offence under Section 276CC of the Act. The case of the petitioners is that, the expression 'wilfully' occurring in Section 278E of the Act indicates the mens rea element. This is the basis for the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution is bound to prove the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. However, by introduction of Section 278E, which gives rise to a presumption as to the culpable mental state of the accused, the entire basis of accusatorial jurisprudence, as accepted and recognised in India, has been shifted. The petitioners contend that while having to defend a wholly baseless and vexatious criminal proceedings, they are also expected to discharge t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007(2)CTC31; (2007)IILLJ59Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Writ Petition Nos. 20933 & 23606 of 2006 have been filed against the order of the Labour Court/first respondent made in I.A. No. 117/2006 in I.D. No. 514/2001 dated 19.6.2006 and the other four writ petitions were filed against the order in I.A. Nos. 68 to 71 of 2005 in C.P.Nos.209 of 2004, 214 of 2004, 455 of 2004 and 456 of 2004 respectively to quash the identical order dated 03.3.2006 and also to declare Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I.D. Act'] as ultravires of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.2. It is seen from the records that the second respondent workman engaged an authorised representative to defend him in I.D. No. 514/2001, relating to his non-employment. The writ petitioners were represented by a counsel and they filed Vakalat as early as on 27.3.2002. After 55 adjournments of the case, the workman filed an application in I.A. No. 117/2006 objecting to the writ petitioner/management being represented...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)6MLJ681
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Since the relief sought in all these eleven writ petitions is identical, these petitions are decided by this common order.2. The case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is as under:The petitioners which are Charitable and Educational Trusts, with the intention of starting Nursing Colleges/Nursing Schools, applied to the Health & Family Welfare Department of Government of Tamil Nadu and opened Joint Fixed Deposit accounts with the Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai (DME, Chennai). The petitioners' Nursing Colleges/Schools were inspected by the DME, Chennai and Inspection Report was sent by the DME, Chennai to the State Government for grant of No Objection Certificate to the petitioners to start College/School of Nursing. The State Government too passed orders, in accordance with the regulations fixed by the Indian Nursing Council, to the effect of granting No Objection Certificate to the petitioners to start College/School of Nursing. One of the condition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)6MLJ694
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The petitioners who are Technical Assistants-Mechanical in Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur Dam, Salem District, have filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Memo of the third respondent in his Memo No. 008029/45/G55/G552/2005-2 dated 27.03.2005 and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to consider and select them as Junior Engineer-Mechanical (Grade II) by internal selection in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations as amended in B.P. Ms.(FB) No. 47, Secretariat Branch dated 12.06.1987.2. The petitioners' case, in brief, as culled out from their affidavit, is as under:The petitioners who are diploma holders in Mechanical Engineering, were appointed as Technical Assistants in the respondent Board on compassionate ground on 06.01.2000. Pursuant to calling of applications by the second respondent for internal selection to the post o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)6MLJ1439
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. W.P. No. 8618 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioner therein seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent therein, namely, Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk. As per the said order, the Writ Petitioner was directed not to proceed with any constructions in an extent of 90 cents situated in S. No. 297/1 since an enquiry as regards the issuance of patta was pending.2. W.P. No. 4950 of 2007 is a Public Interest Litigation and the petitioner therein seeks for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 in that writ petition to clear, maintain and construct a General Hospital in the site earmarked for Peripheral Hospital in T.S. No. 14 of Block No. 29 Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk. The T.S. No. 14 referred to therein corresponds to the original S. No. 297/1.3. W.P. Nos. 8624 and 8625 of 2006 have been preferred by the petitioners therein challenging the order of the first respondent therein, namely, the Special C...
Tag this Judgment!