Chennai Court August 2010 Judgments
infant Jesus Teacher Training Institute,vs. M.Manikandan, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. This Review Application is filed to review the order dated 23.11.2009 in W.A.No.1145 of 2009, whereby this Court has cancelled the second year examination given by the students and directing the students to sit for the second year Elementary Teacher Training Course Examination once again at the end of academic year 2010-2011.2. Brief facts are that Review Petitioner Institution viz., Infant Jesus Teacher Training Institute, Vellore District has been granted recognition by Southern Regional Committee [in short, "SRC"], of National Council for Teacher Education [NCTE] by an order dated 20.01.2005 under Section 14(1) of NCTE Act, 1993 to offer Elementary Teacher Training Course of two years duration from the academic session 2004-05 with an annual intake of 50 students. Review Petitioner- Institute applied to NCTE to grant recognition for an additional intake of another 50 students. NCTE in its letter dated 23.12.2005 informed the Review Petitioner that SRC considered the written repre...
Tag this Judgment!D.Gurusamy .Vs. Dr.Shanthini Kapoor Ias, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. The petitioner herein seeks to punish the respondents under Section-11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for having violated the order, dated 26.10.1999, passed in W.P. No.11015 of 2009, whereby, the respondents were directed to take steps within the time stipulated therein to settle the retirement and pension benefits of the petitioner.2. The facts leading to filing of the contempt petitions need to be abridged as follows:-The petitioner D. Gurusamy, while serving as Works Manager of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited (TANSI), came to be transferred and posted as Works Manager of Tamil Nadu Leather Development Corporation (TALCO). By G.O. Ms. No.54, Small Industries (SID) Department, dated 30.10.2000, the TALCO was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Board (KHADI BOARD) and subsequently, the employees of the TALCO were absorbed into service by the Khadi Board. The petitioner was posted as General Manager, Khadi Board, Chennai, and he continued in the said...
Tag this Judgment!Jeya @ M.Jeyalakshmi, and anr.Vs. the Secretary, Housing and Urban Dev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. In W.P.No.6785 of 2006, the petitioner is the wife of one late P.Mannar. She filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent i.e. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board to consider her representation dated 17.01.2006 to reconvey the lands situated in S.No.103/2 measuring to an extent of 0.26 acres at Nolambur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. 2. The petitioner claims that she is the co-owner of the piece of land along with her husband's brother P.Valmurthy in S.No.103/2 measuring to the extent of 0.70 acres at Nolambur Village having purchased the same by a sale deed dated 14.11.1963 registered with the Sub-Registrar, Sembium. The State Government (1st respondent) on a request being made by the second respondent acquired a larger extent of land including the petitioner's land by a notification under Section 4(1) dated 11.12.1975. This was for the purpose of executing Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. After due procedure, the lands were acq...
Tag this Judgment!V.Vajravelu. Vs. the Director of School Education,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.1582 of 2000, challenging the order passed by the respondent. The said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.940 of 2007. 2. The petitioner, after his appointment as B.T.Assistant (Maths) on 18.07.68 in Government Higher School, Kumpinipet, North Arcot Ambedkar District, his services were regularised with effect from 18.07.68 and thereupon, he was also awarded Selection Grade as well as Special Grade with effect from 18.07.78 and 18.07.88 respectively. Later on, he was served as B.T.Assistant upto 19.07.90 and transferred as Assistant Educational Officer, Nemili on 20.06.90. Again, he was transferred to Government High School, Sayanapuram as B.T.Assistant (Maths) as per Na.Ka.No.7063/D3/95, dated 29.06.95 by the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore. After joining as B.T.Assistant in the same school on 05....
Tag this Judgment!Elumalai .Vs. State.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, made in S.C.No.12 of 2010 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and two years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.324 IPC, and he was acquitted of the third charge under Sec.506(ii) IPC. 2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Ramanathan @ Mohammed. P.W.2 is the wife and P.W.3 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. The deceased along with his family members P.Ws.1 to 3, was residing at No.51, Jyothi Ammal Nagar 3rd Street, Saidapet. The accused is the brother of P.W.2. At about 4.30 P.M. on 30.8.2009, there was a wordy altercation between P.W.2 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran, and anr.Vs. the State Rep. by the Inspector Mangalamedu Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Mahila Court, Perambalur, made in S.C.No.5 of 2008 whereby the appellants shown as A-1 and A-2 respectively, along with A-3 stood charged under Sec.302 read with 34 of IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence. As far as A-3 was concerned, the charges stood abated since he died pending proceedings. 2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(a) A-1 was a tenant under P.W.7. He was residing with his wife P.W.8 and children P.Ws.2 and 9, the son and daughter respectively. He was carrying on a tea stall also. Since A-1 was carrying on cattle business, he used to go to different places often. Taking advantage of his absence, the wife of A-1 developed intimacy with the deceased Thangavel, who was doing coolie work in the cattle shed. This came to the knowledge of A-1, and he rebuked them. When it came to the knowledge of the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Selvarasu, and anr.Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Deputy Superintendent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-III), Vridhachalam dated 31.7.2003 made in S.C.No.67/2001, convicting the appellants, who have been arrayed as A1 & A2 for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. There are totally four accused in this case and the learned Trial Judge acquitted A3 & A4 from all the charges. The learned Trial Judge also disbelieved the prosecution case for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and acquitted the appellants and other accused for the said charge. 2.The prosecution case in a nutshell is hereunder:2.1. PW1 is the father of the deceased. PW2 is the mother of the deceased. A1 is the husband of the deceased. A2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. A3 and A4 are the sisters-in-law of the deceased. A1 and the deceased loved each other a...
Tag this Judgment!R.Arumainathan .Vs. the District Collector Villupuram District, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. The petitioner was employed as a Panchayat Assistant in the fifth respondent Panchayat. He was transferred by the second respondent, by an order dated 13.11.2009, from the fifth respondent Panchayat to fourth respondent Panchayat. However, the fourth respondent Panchayat did not permit him to join the office. This forced the petitioner to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the fourth respondent to implement the order dated 13.11.2009 of the second respondent and also for a direction to pay him salary arrears and other benefits from December 2009. 2.Notice of motion was ordered on 24.03.2010. Respondents 3 and 4 filed counter affidavits. The third respondent also filed additional counter affidavit dated 30.08.2010. 3.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was transferred by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 13.11.2009, from fifth respondent Panchayat to fourt...
Tag this Judgment!Elumalai .. Vs. State: Rep. by the Inspector of Police J.1 Saidapet Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, made in S.C.No.12 of 2010 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and two years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.324 IPC, and he was acquitted of the third charge under Sec.506(ii) IPC. 2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Ramanathan @ Mohammed. P.W.2 is the wife and P.W.3 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. The deceased along with his family members P.Ws.1 to 3, was residing at No.51, Jyothi Ammal Nagar 3rd Street, Saidapet. The accused is the brother of P.W.2. At about 4.30 P.M. on 30.8.2009, there was a wordy altercation between P.W.2 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Manoharan. Vs. Botharaja Udayar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 13.7.2006, made in A.S.No.49 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arani, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2001, made in O.S.No.265 of 1999, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Polur. 2. The defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.265 of 1999, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein. The suit had been filed praying for a decree to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards damages, with subsequent interest, at the rate of 12%, from the date of the plaint, till the date of the realisation of the entire suit amount, and for costs. 3. The plaintiff had stated that he is the owner of the suit property, as it had been allotted to him, under a registered partition deed, dated 27.7.1993. It had also been stated that the defendant is having cultivable lands, on the northern side of the suit propert...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »