Chennai Court December 2008 Judgments

R. Mageswari Vs. A. Sengoda Goundar,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad87; (2009)2MLJ513

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. While Writ Appeal Nos. 1954 to 1961 of 2002 have been preferred by the appellants, who are the applicants for grant of stage carriage permits, against the order of a learned single Judge, dated 21.12.2001, setting aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 08.06.1993, directing for grant of permits in favour of the appellants, W.A. Nos. 2771 to 2774 of 2003 are preferred by the objectors/private existing operators against the order of another learned single Judge, dated 03.07.2000, dismissing the writ petitions to set aside the very same order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 08.06.1993.2. Though all these Writ Appeals involve a common question of law, as they are divided and preferred against two contra decisions, it is proper to segregate these appeals into two categories, while giving disposal.3. In the first category, let us decide W.A. Nos. 1954 to 1961 of 2002. Of these cases, W.A. No. 1960 of 2003 is taken for ref...

T. Arumai Sounder Rajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ1283

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.1. The appellant is the writ petitioner and aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition in which challenge was made to the order of termination of his service, has filed this writ appeal.2. The facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:The petitioner was selected as the Assistant Manager (Legal) (Trainee) for one year vide proceedings of respondents 2 and 3 dated 27.7.1983 and thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Manager (Legal) on regular basis on 27.7.1984. On 1.9.1986, all of a sudden, the appellant was transferred from Legal department and was kept idle without allocation of any work for about 5 months and whereas one A.V.Pandian, though was a junior Superintendent, was entrusted with the affairs of the law department. When Mr. A.V. Pandian was incharge of Legal Department, a bus belonging to the third respondent Corporation was attached on 10.1.1987 pertaining to decree obtained in Motor Accident Case...

Mspl Gases Limited Rep. by Its Senior Manager (Sales) Mr. D. Ramesh Ba ...

Court: Chennai

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...

Dr. C. Palanivelu, Attached with Vedanayagam Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Coimb ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court} 1. No representation for Respondent. 2. The petitioners herein are the opposite parties, first respondent is the complainant and the 2nd respondent is the proposed 2nd complainant before the District Forum. 3. The Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the District Forum in impleading the proposed 2nd complainant. The short ground raised in the Revision Petition is as to whether the proposed 2nd complainant could be impleaded nearly after 7-years from the date of the institution of the complaint alleging deficiency as against the petitioners/opposite parties. 4. The complaint is filed originally by the 1st respondent herein alleging deficiency as against the opposite parties/petitioners herein to the effect that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties while treating his mother, who is sought to be impleaded now. A perusal of the complaint discloses that the deficiency is alleged while giving treatment in the course of r...

K.Nagarathinam Vs. the Coimbatore Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., C ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court} 1. No representation for Respondent. 2. The petitioners herein are the opposite parties, first respondent is the complainant and the 2nd respondent is the proposed 2nd complainant before the District Forum. 3. The Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the District Forum in impleading the proposed 2nd complainant. The short ground raised in the Revision Petition is as to whether the proposed 2nd complainant could be impleaded nearly after 7-years from the date of the institution of the complaint alleging deficiency as against the petitioners/opposite parties. 4. The complaint is filed originally by the 1st respondent herein alleging deficiency as against the opposite parties/petitioners herein to the effect that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties while treating his mother, who is sought to be impleaded now. A perusal of the complaint discloses that the deficiency is alleged while giving treatment in the course of r...