Chennai Court September 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.
Dr.T.Muthukumar, Vs. the Secretary to Government, Health and Family We ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the first respondent and direct the respondents to refund the total amount of Rs.7,07,525/- collected from the petitioner towards service bonds, based on his representation dated 17.11.2004.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(i) The petitioner is a qualified Medical Practitioner, passed MBBS degree from the Madras Medical College in the year 1990. He joined as Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Services on 20.1.1992. (ii) The petitioner appeared for All India Entrance Examination, conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, for Post Graduate course and he was selected and admitted to M.D.(General Medicine) in Stanley Medical College, Chennai and he underwent the course from 29.5.1992 to 31.3.1994. The petitioner after passing M.D.(General Medicine) course, was selected for the Super Speciality course in D.M.(Nephrology) in the P...
Jayachandran, and ors. Vs. Vidyavathi, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants and they filed this Second Appeal aggrieved over the decree and judgment dated 30.01.2004 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, in A.S.No.21 of 2003, whereby the decree and judgment dated 04.09.2002 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, in O.S.No.99 of 1998 were set aside. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the trial court.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:The 3rd respondent herein is the plaintiff, who filed the pauper suit in O.S.No.99 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Ponneri, against the defendants, who are the appellants, respondents 1 and 2 herein and her mother, for a partition and separate possession of her 1/8th share in the suit property. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are the children of late Kothandapani and Unnamalai Ammal, the 7th defendant and all constituted members of a Hindu Joint family. Kothandapani Gramani died...
G.Pushparaj. Vs. the Chief Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The petitioner's father was employed as Gang Mazdoor in the respondent Department. He died on 05.02.1981, while he was in service, leaving behind him, his wife, viz., the mother of the petitioner, and two sons as his legal heirs. The petitioner is one of the sons. The mother of the petitioner is getting family pension. At the time of the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was aged about 12 years. The petitioner made an application on 25.11.1987 to the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department, Thiruvallur, seeking compassionate appointment. The Superintending Engineer, Chennai Circle wrote a letter dated 21.11.1990 to the District Collector, Chengai Anna District, Kancheepuram recommending the application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The petitioner produced all the required certificates for compassionate appointment.2. While so, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 15.06.1999, rejecting the petitioner's...
K.Jayaramakrishnan. Vs. the Secretary to Government, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The petitioner entered into service as Grade-II Police Constable in District Armed Reserve, Chengalpattu East District on 17.03.1979 and he was promoted as Head Constable on 13.07.1985. 2. The petitioner was further promoted as Sub Inspector of Police, temporarily on 18.02.1998. While so, the second respondent issued the impugned Memorandum in Rc.No.104318 NGB V(2)/2000, dated 12.05.2000, convening the Range Promotion Board for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. 3. The petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.4773 of 2000 (W.P.No.46714 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid proceedings dated 12.05.2000 of the second respondent and for a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police (A.R) from the date of his promotion and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits. 4. While ordering notice of motion on 10.07.2000, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed an order not to r...
K.Subramaniam. Vs. R.Boopalan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The Plaintiff in O.S.No.159 of 2002 on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Court is the revision petitioner before the Court.2. He is aggrieved by the order of trial Court dated 11.01.2008 dismissing the application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. In I.A.No.18901 of 2007.3. The brief facts are as follows:The plaintiff filed O.S.No.159 of 2002 for a judgment and decree against the defendant for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to run the business of casting works exclusively under the name and style of "General Casting Works" at NO.69, Demellows Road, Chennai -600 112 and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the business of casting of works run by the plaintiff in the same name at the same place. Written statement was filed by the defendant and the trial has already commenced. At that time, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.18901 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the plaint.4. In the affidavit filed in support of am...
K.Munirathinam Naidu. Vs. G.Balaraman.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The Plaintiff in O.S.No.198 of 2006 is the revision petitioner before this Court.2. O.S.No.198 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending suit the plaintiff filed an I.A.No.172 of 2007 under Order 13 Rule 3 of C.P.C. to reject the Unregistered Lease Deed filed by the defendant which is inadmissible in evidence and also not rectificable even by affixing penalty stamp duty vide 2006 (5) CTC 681 (Duraisami Naidu and others v. C.Ramakrishnan and others). A counter was filed on behalf of the defendant wherein it was stated that plaintiff was given sufficient opportunity to file counter before marking the documents. As it was not done, the petition was allowed ex-parte and the document was marked. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of I.A.3. The trial Court by order dated 28.02.2007 relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (3) S...
Mrs.M.Malathi AmmA. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The petitioner's husband was employed in a post called 'Follower' in TSP II Battalion, Avadi from 1967 onwards. He was medically invalidated from service on 12.05.1979. Subsequently, he expired on 18.08.1990. His service was posthumously regularised with retrospective effect from 01.10.1967, pursuant to government order in G.O.Ms.No.1742, Home (POL XV) Department dated 22.10.1992, regularising the services of all Followers.2. In view of his services having been regularised, he should have been paid pension from 12.05.1979 to 18.08.1990 and thereafter family pension to the petitioner. Neither pension to the petitioner's husband nor family pension to the petitioner was paid. No other terminal benefits were settled.3. This forced the petitioner to file O.A.No.4364 of 2000 (W.P.No.44262 of 2006), praying for directions to respondents to settle all terminal benefits including family pension with all arrears.4. Respondents 1 to 3 have not filed any counter affidavit. 4th respondent has al...
S.Santhiagu Irudhayaraj, and anr. Vs. the Assistant Director of Agricu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. The Original Applications in O.A.Nos.5177, 5121 and 5138 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal are the present writ petitions.2. The petitioners were working as Assistant Agricultural Officers at different places in Coimbatore District. A charge memo dated 12.08.1999 was issued to the petitioners under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the respondent alleging that the petitioners caused loss of Rs.38,457.50 in distribution of groundnut seeds at subsidized rates. It was alleged that there was no counter signature of the Agricultural Officers in the applications, wherein the petitioners recommended for distribution of groundnut seeds. It was further alleged that documents were fabricated relating to the distribution of groundnut seeds. It was also alleged that the petitioners involved in misappropriation. The petitioners denied the allegations and explained that their duty ended as soon as they forwarded the applications recom...
SasikalA. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2010
1. This petition challenges an order of the second respondent dated 22.3.2010, whereby the son of the petitioner by name Siva @ Thiruttu Siva @ Yamaha Siva was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding her as a Goonda as defined under the provisions of that Act. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and all the materials and in particular, the order under challenge were scrutinized. 3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in seven adverse cases namely (1) Thiruvannamalai City PS Cr.No.288/2007 under Sec.380 IPC; (2) V3 JJ Nagar PS Cr.No.412/2008 under Sec.379 IPC; (3) Thiruvannamalai PS Cr.No.717/2008 under Sec.379 IPC; (4) T-2 Ambattur Estate PS Cr.No.467/2009 under Sections 341 and 324 IPC; (5) V7 Nolambur PS Cr.No.573/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (6) V3 JJ Nagar PS Cr.No.670/2009 under Sec.379 IPC and V7 Nolambur PS Cr.No.695/2009 under Sec.379 IPC and also in one ground case r...
J.Sivakami, and ors. Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the Award and Decree, dated 12.10.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.768 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No.II, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.6,34,000/- together with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2.Having not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellants/claimants have filed the above appeal praying additional compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. 3.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 24.01.2005, at 19.30 hours the deceased was sitting on the leftern side of the break down lorry bearing registration No.TN04 F5512 in front of the rear view which was parked on the extreme leftern side of the Velacherry-Taramani 100 feet road, opposite to American School, Velacherry and assisting the mechanic, who is lying underneath the lorry on doing repair work. At that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »