Chennai Court April 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
V. Srinivasan Vs. the Commissioner of Municipal Admn. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent imposing the major penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service.2. The petitioner, while serving as Office Assistant in the office of the 2nd respondent, gave rise to issue of an order of suspension and also issuance of charge memo by the respondent. After receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation and being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, domestic enquiry was ordered. Accordingly, the enquiry officer, who was appointed to conduct domestic enquiry, after affording opportunity to the parties, submitted his enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, after issuing a second show cause notice and on receipt of explanation, having not satisfied with the second explanation offered by the petitioner, passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the service of...
S. Sarath Kakkamanu Vs. Anandraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 30.4.2009, in I.A. No. 525 of 2009, in O.S. No. 297 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur.2. The petitioner in the present civil revision petition is the defendant in the suit, in O.S. No. 297 of 2009. The respondent had filed the suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and others from, in any manner, interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, described in schedules 'A' and 'B' of the plaint and for costs.3. It has been stated that, originally, the petitioner had purchased the property bearing Door Nos. 1/37, 1/53 and 1/53A, Officers line, Pallavaram Cantonment, Pallvaram, Chennai, situated in R.S. Nos. 179 and 180, by way of two separate sale deeds, dated 12.3.1996 and 8.4.1996, from the Madras Christian Children Home, which is a society, represented by V.A. George. From the date of its ...
Ameerjan and Vs. Special Tahsildar Adi Dravida Welfare and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, Mr. Ameerjan & Mr. B.A. Shafeeq Ahamad, seeking a direction to the respondents to drop the proceedings for acquisition of their lands in S. No. 136 of an extent of 1.40.0 Hectares and in S. No. 137/2 an extent of 0.02.5 Hectares in Berikai Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.2. The petitioner own 4 Acres 50 cents of agricultural lands in Berikai Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. Since the 1st respondent issued notice under Section 3(1) in Form 1 of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 in Na. Ka. No. 811/04, dated 27.12.2004, stating that the petitioners land along with other lands are required for providing house sites for Adi Dravidars of the village, the 2nd petitioner sent objections on behalf of himself and his father Ameerjan, the 1st petitioner herein, on 20.01.2005 against the acquisition of lands for Adi Dravida Housing to the 1st respondent. Subsequen...
J.P. Builders Rep. by Its Proprietor J. Paramanandam, Vs. A. Ramadas R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. We have disposed of A.S. No. 708 of 2008 (preferred by 1st respondent/Plaintiff), A.S. No. 946 of 2009 (preferred by Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2) and W.P. No. 23405 of 2009 filed by 1st Respondent/Plaintiff by our common judgment dated 23.2.2010.2. Stating that the order of the Division Bench suffers from error apparent on the face of record, that there is total lack of jurisdiction and the Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction, Review Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred these review petitions seeking review of the Judgment in A.S. No. 708 of 2008 and W.P. No. 23405 of 2009. Even though it was a common judgment, no review is sought for in respect of A.S. No. 946 of 2009.3. Grievance of the review petitioners is that the Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code by going into the questions, which were not pleaded and which were not the subject matter of any issue by formulating questions of law, which did not ar...
K. Rajachandran Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The present writ petition is for two reliefs; one for seeking regularisation of the period of suspension of the petitioner from 16.03.1993 to 19.07.1993 as 'duty' period with all consequential benefits.The second prayer made by the petitioner is to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Sericulture for the year 1998-1999, approved in G.O. Ms. No. 84, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, dated 05.05.1999, below Sl. No. 1 and 1-A and above the name of the 3rd respondent and to promote him as such with retrospective effect from 20.05.1999 i.e., the date of promotion of his immediate junior/third respondent.2. It is considered by both sides that the first prayer of the petitioner seeking regularisation of the period of suspension of the petitioner from 16.03.1993 to 19.07.1993 as 'duty' period with all consequential benefits, were already granted by the respondent in G.O.[...
A. Mani Vs. the Sales Officer, Registrar of the District (Housing) and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. This writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent society to dispose of the representation dated 16.2.2010 in accordance with law on or before a date to be fixed.2. The petitioner owes certain amount to the second respondent-society and therefore the property was brought to auction. The petitioner filed a writ petition in WP No. 2340 of 2010 challenging the auction. A direction was issued by this Court in W.P. No. 2340 of 2010 by its order dated 9.2.2010 to pay certain amount as a pre-condition for grant of interim stay of auction proceedings. The said interim order has not been complied with and that is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. In the present case, the petitioner now states that his mother deposited a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- on 5.11.1998 and that was not given credit to by the society. On the contrary, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- alone has been given credit. He is under the bonafide impression that the amount deposited by his mothe...
M. Geetha Vs. P. Periyasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw H.M.O.P. No. 93 of 2009,pending, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri and transfer the same to the Second Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with M.C. No. 515 of 2009.2. At this stage of the hearing of the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for this Court, passing an order allowing this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition.3. Hence, H.M.O.P. No. 93 of 2009, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri, is withdrawn and transferred to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with M.C. No. 515 of 2009.This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
J.B.J. Alexander Vs. the Secretary to Government, Health and Family We ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of removal from service passed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 11.9.2006, confirmed in appeal by the Government in G.O.(D)No. 760, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 25.6.2007 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages and all attendant benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Pharmacist on 1.1.1974 in the District Headquarters Hospital in Nagapattinam and he worked for 33 years and was removed from service based on a charge memo issued on 19.11.2003 framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Petitioner having denied the charges, an enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was submitted on 29.9.2005. Relying on the said enquiry report, petitioner was removed from service by order dated 11.9.2006, which was challenged in W.P. No. 37066 of 2006 before this Court. The s...
Suhasini Maniratnam Vs. D. Balachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERC.S. Karnan, J.1. The petitioner, who has been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 500, 504, 505(ii), 294(b) and 499 of I.P.C. has come forward with these petitions, seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings in the following cases: 1. Crl. O.P. No. 33173 of 2005 against C.C. No. 1107 of 2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode,2. Crl. O.P. No. 33369 of 2005 against C.C. No. 648 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode,3. Crl. O.P. No. 33797 of 2005 against C.C. No. 293 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi,4. Crl. O.P. No. 33370 of 2005 against C.C. No. 649 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode,5. Crl. O.P. No. 33174 of 2005 against C.C. No. 644 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District,6. Crl. O.P. No. 34055 of 2005 against C.C. No. 462 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur,7...
The Shozhanganallur Rep. by Its Secretary K. Appadurai Vs. the Shozhan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2010
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This is a public interest litigation filed by the Shozhanganallur Phase I and Phase II Tamil Nadu Housing Board affected Residents Welfare Association. The third respondent promoted a satellite township at Shozhanganallur with developed housing plan in three places. According to the petitioner, while doing so, they encroached upon several water bodies, which resulted in the deprivation of water sources like ponds, lakes, reservoirs etc. The unplanned development of plots would lead to reduced ground water table and salination of the existing good quality. They sent a representation to the Member Secretary, C.M.D.A., and others. They also participated in the public meeting conducted by the Kancheepuram District Shozhanganallur Panchayat Union on 6.09.2007 and prayed for protection of water bodies. According to them, the water bodies were permitted by Shozhanganallur Town Panchayat Union to be taken over by the Tamil Nadu Hosuing Board for development of housin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »