Chennai Court February 2009 Judgments
C.D. Varadarajan Vs. S. Mohan and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad104
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is defendant in O.S. No. 338 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner putting up construction in the specified area and for a mandatory direction to the defendant to demolish the already constructed wall and pillars in the suit property. After the commencement of trial i.e., while the suit was at part heard stage, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Section 151 of C.P.C to amend the plaint to introduce certain particulars in the Schedule as regards Survey Numbers.2.(i) In the affidavit filed by these respondents it is alleged that while the first respondent was in the box, he was cross examined by the defendant's Counsel to the effect that the Survey Numbers of the house property purchased by him and his wife were not furnished in the plaint. If the Survey Numbers are given in the S...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gangadharan, Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ698
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This writ petition is filed by three teachers, who are Malayalam Pandits working in Gudalur Taluk of Nilgiris District. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to implement O.A. No. 1953 of 1989, dated 9.10.1990. By the aforesaid O.A., the Tribunal entertained a petition from four other teachers. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:Therefore, Rule 5 of the Special Rules itself is quite clear in the matter. Further, it is conceded by the respondents that by virtue of the applicants having passed the second class language test (Full test) in Tamil, they can be posted to bilingual schools offering Malayalam and Tamil media of instruction where they can very well manage the administrative and academic functions. Under such circumstances, reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 5 of the Special Rules for maintaining separate seniority list is totally unfounded. The contention raised by the applicant that only a comb...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Sampath Vs. Bank of Baroda, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR698]; (2009)IIILLJ555Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent, appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (constituted by the Central Government) made in G.A. No. 52/98 dated 31.12.1998 and seeks for a direction to the first respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 60,197/- as ordered by the Controlling Authority under the PG Act made in G.A. No. 25/97 dated 16.3.1998 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date it became payable, viz., 19.9.1996 till the date of payment.2. The writ petition was admitted on 19.4.1999. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit dated 13.7.1999 has been filed by the first respondent.3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was an employee of the first respondent bank and was appointed even before the bank was nationalised. He was appointed on 02.4.1962. He got retired from service in the cadre of middle management scale III Officer on 31.4.1964 on attaining the age of superannuati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›