Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Apr 23 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

I. Jackuline Mary vs (1) Superintendent of Police, Karur; (2) Principal, Police Recruit School, Vellore; (3) Principal/Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Chennai; (4) Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu; (5) Chairman, Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (USRB), Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Apr 2014]

(1) Ranganathan S/o Kaliyappan Manager, KPR Processing Company, Erode; (2) Ramanan S/o Balasubramaniyam Personal Officer, KPR Processing Company, Erode; (3) Nagendran S/o Mathu Incharge ETP Plant, KPR Processing Company, Erode vs State of Tamil Nadu  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 16 Apr 2014]

Sudha Ramalingam vs (1) Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras; (2) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary, Home (Courts-II) Department, Chennai; (3) Women Lawyers Association (Regd), Represented by its Secretary, Chennai; (4) Shaikh Mehrunisa; (5) Tamil Nadu Federation of Woman Lawyers, Represented by its President K. Santhakumari, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 15 Apr 2014]
Constitution - Practice & Procedure - Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 226, 235 - Family Courts Act, 1984, ss. 21, 23 - Family Courts Procedure Rules, 1996, r. 3 - Functioning of the Holiday Family Courts - Difficulties to Family Court Legal Practitioners - Legal sanction - Legality - Petitioner filed instant PIL praying for a writ of declaration, declaring the functioning of the Holiday Family Courts at 'C' as illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory and ultra vires of the Act - Petitioner contended that Holiday Family Courts were inaugurated on 10-7-2010 at the instance of HC, due to which the Advocates practising before the Family Courts in 'C', who were permitted to appear for parties, including Amicus Curie in various cases with the permission of the Presiding Officers of Family Courts, were put to great hardships as the Advocates were unable to meet their professional and family commitments -

Held, it was not in dispute that HC was having administrative and Supervisory power over the Courts subordinate to it including the Family Courts u/art. 235 of Constitution - In instant case, power of exercised by HC was its administrative power, which confer such power to ensure independence of judiciary - By reading of art. 235 of Constitution r/w objects of the Act and ss. 21 and 23 of the Act, Court was of firm view that the jurisdiction of HC to notify that Family Courts in 'C' would function on holidays was having legal sanction and want of jurisdiction alleged by petitioner in that respect was unsustainable - Petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 5 (Women Lawyers Association and Lawyer's Federation) could submit representation to that effect to HC on administrative side i.e. praying for issuing directions to the Presiding Officers of the Holiday Family Courts to post cases/family disputes in Holiday Family Courts only after filing memo signed by parties to the proceeding or by counsel, who were representing/assisting the parties to proceedings - No such request was made by petitioner/Associations so far - Thus, liberty was granted to make such representation before respondent no.1 (Registrar General), who in turn would place it for considering the same and take a decision on that aspect administratively - Petitioner and Association were not justified in blaming the HC for belated announcements of vacation or holidays - Petition disposed of.


S. Hemalatha vs (1) P. Murali Vittal; (2) P. Mahaveer Chand S/o Parasmal; (3) P. Mahaveer Chand, Director, Sponcer Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkatta  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Apr 2014]

K. Suresh Babu vs (1) Inspector General of Registration, Chennai; (2) District Registrar, North Chennai Registration District, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Apr 2014]

Sapthagiri Educational Trust, Represented by its Secretary M. Vasu, Chennai vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, Chennai; (2) Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Represented by its Registrar, 'Poompozhil', Chennai; (3) Bar Council of India, Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi; (4) Director of Legal Studies, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Apr 2014]

Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam, Represented by its Organizing Secretary T. K. S. Elangovan, Chennai vs (1) Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, New Delhi; (2) State Chief Election Commissioner, Chennai; (3) Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Apr 2014]

Tamil Nadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 11 Apr 2014]

CCE, Chennai-I vs Futura Fibres  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 10 Apr 2014]

CCE, Madurai vs TVS Srichakra Limited  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 10 Apr 2014]

CCE, Chennai-III vs Ultratech Cements Limited  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 10 Apr 2014]

Seetharaman vs Mani  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 10 Apr 2014]

CCE, Chennai-IV vs India Gypsum Limited  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Apr 2014]

CCE, Chennai-II vs Electrosteel Castings Limited  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Apr 2014]

CCE, Salem vs Pavai Alloys & Steels Private Limited  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Apr 2014]

Tamil Film Producer's Council Represented by Secretaries T. Siva, K. E. Gnanavel Raja, Chennai vs (1) S. Thanu V. Creations, Chennai; (2) A. N. Pavithran A. R. S. International, Chennai; (3) M. M. Thaha Royal Movies, Chennai; (4) N. G. Murugesh Palavadai Amman Creations, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 09 Apr 2014]

Exim Rajathi India Private Limited vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 07 Apr 2014]

Mando India Steering Systems Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 07 Apr 2014]

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs .Exim Rajathi India Private Limited  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 07 Apr 2014]

Assistant Director of Income Tax vs Natya Sankalpaa  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 07 Apr 2014]

Prime Urban Development India Limited vs Income Tax Officer  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 07 Apr 2014]

SJLT Textiles Private Limited vs CCE, Salem  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 07 Apr 2014]

Standard Corporation India Limited, Formerly known as Standard Combines Private Limited, (Tractor Division), Punjab vs Tractors and Farm Equipment Represented by its General Manager (Legal Services) T. Narayanan Limited, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

A. B. Fathima Sulthana W/o E. Gulab vs (1) Women Lawyers Association Represented by its Secretary, Chennai; (2) D. Prasanna; (3) S. Thamizharasi; (4) V. Nalini; (5) N. Beulah John Selvaraj; (6) G. V. Shoba; (7) V. Alamelu; (8) G. Kavitha; (9) S. Suseela Devi; (10) K. Nandini; (11) R. Vidya; (12) J. Sundara Kanchani; (13) D. Mary Rose  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]

(1) M. Jayasankar; (2) K. Anumuthu; (3) A. Mathiyazhagan; (4) D. Geetha vs (1) Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai; (2) Managing Director, T.N.H.B. Annasalai, Chennai; (3) Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Secretary and Personal Officer, Chennai; (4) Executive Engineer and Administration Officer, Krishnagiri District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2014]
Service - Temporary or adhoc appointment - Regularisation - Denial - Entitlement of - Petitioners were appointed on on daily wages basis sponsored through employment exchange, filed instant petitions for calling for the file of respondent (Board) resolution dt.30-4-2012 and to quash the same and further sought for issuance of an order in directing the respondents to reappoint and regularise their services as Technical Assistants in Board - Petitioners contended that they made repeated requests for their absorption as Technical Assistant but there was no reply and indeed, they made last representation dt.16-5-2011 to respondent no. 2 and that Board Meeting dt.30-4-2012, accorded its approval to call for the list from the Exchange and appoint 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and one Surveyor and further Board issued call letters to candidates fixing the date of interview on 1-9-2012 - Whether petitioner were entitled to regularisation of their services as claimed -

Held, fact that petitioners' engagement as Technical Assistants, through Letter dt.29-11-1989, were 'purely on daily wages basis and the same were neither regular nor temporary' and further, it was made clear that they should not claim the continuance of permanent on the job, as a matter of right, comes to an inescapable conclusion that pleas of petitioners to reappoint and regularise their services as Technical Assistants in the Board, were not per se maintainable before Court, in the eye of law and as such, Court negatives their pleas -Plea of petitioners that Board passed a resolution dt.30-4-2012 to fill up the vacancies of 15 Assistant Engineers, 15 Technical Assistants and 1 Land Surveyor, by ignoring their representations dt.16-5-2011, could not be sustained because of the reason that in absence of number of Technical Assistants in Board, Board found it difficult to execute their work promptly and with a view to fill up the vacancies to avoid unnecessary delay in executing the works smoothly and timely, the Resolution was passed - Petitions dismissed.




Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer