M.Abdul Rajak vs The Management
Judges:
13 April, 2009·This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the second respondent Tribunal, dated 28.3.2002, made in I.D.No.468 of 2001, and for a direction to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all consequential benefits, including backwages.2. It has been stated that ...
Madras High Court
A.S.Kadar Basha vs M.Ganeshan
Judges:
13 April, 2009·Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition it has been submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner...
Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Tagros Chemicals Of India Ltd
Judges:
13 April, 2009·(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J) The revenue on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.09.2006 passed in ITA.No.829/Mds/2006 relating to the assessment years 2001-02.2. The material facts culled out from the statement of facts stated in th...
Madras High Court
Mr.S.Chandrabose vs Mr.N.Sampath
Judges:
13 April, 2009·Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/caveators.2. The order passed in I.A.No.914 of 2008 in O.S.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Court of District Munsif,Mettur is under challenge in this revision. The said app...
Madras High Court
A.Senthilvel vs The Management
Judges:
13 April, 2009·This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the second respondent Tribunal, dated 28.3.2002, made in I.D.No.464 of 2001, and for a direction to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all consequential benefits, including backwages.2. It has been stated that ...
Madras High Court
A.L.Ramu vs The Management
Judges:
13 April, 2009·This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the second respondent Tribunal, dated 28.3.2002, made in I.D.No.465 of 2001, and for a direction to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all consequential benefits, including backwages.2. It has been stated that ...
Madras High Court
Mr.P.B.Balaji vs No Appearance
Judges:
13 April, 2009·IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.04.2009 Coram The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P.(PD)No.1420 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.17165 of 20051.U.Chandraprakasam2.Malies Constructions rep. by Proprietrix, Mrs.Nagamalleswari : Petitioners vs.1.S.Krishnan2.K.Bhavani3.K.Kavitha4.Kanna...
Madras High Court
Mr.P.Mani vs Mr.C.Sivanesan
Judges:
13 April, 2009·BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 13.04.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C.R.P.(NPD).No.760 of 2009 K.Ramachandaran ..Revision Petitioner / Petitioner / Appellant (Plaintiff) Vs.1.Mayickannu2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3. .. Re...
Madras High Court
Tamilnadu Nutritious Meal ... vs The Director Of Social Welfare
Judges:
13 April, 2009·Mr.P.Mohanraj, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous and he is not pressing the same. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs.sal To The Director of Social Welfare Chennai 600 005...
Madras High Court
Mr.G.Rm.Palaniappan vs Mr.R.Subramanian
Judges:
13 April, 2009·Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and considered their respective submissions.2. Thiru R.Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would fairly state that on the point of jurisdiction, aft...
Madras High Court
Don’t wait for legal issues to escalate
By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, Refund Policy and Content Policies. © 2023 - Uber9 Business Process Services Private Limited. All rights reserved.