Chennai Court October 2011 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.
K.Jaganayaki Vs. the Accountant General
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The petitioner was a retired school teacher was employed by Sowdambigai Middle school at Allampatti was dismissed from service for certain misconduct which necessitated her to challenge the same before the appellate authority as well as the school tribunal. Finally, the matter was taken up in a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.1147 of 1988. Learned Judge rejected the claim of the petitioner as well as one Mr.C.Natarajan by a common order, dated 12.04.1997 which necessitated the petitioner and the said Natarajan to file writ appeals. The petitioner writ appeal in W.A.No.907 of 1999 was heard along with W.A.No.908 of 1999 by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of both the writ appeals by a common order, dated 24.09.2003. In the case of the petitioner, the Division Bench found that she was not given reasonable opportunity to defend herself against the charges in the enquiry and the enquiry vitiated the grounds of principles of natural just...
A.Manickavasagam Vs. the Managing Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The petitioner was a shop Supervisor of the TASMAC retail vending shop in Shop.No.6714 at Pudukottai District. 2.In this writ petition, the petitioner has originally came forward to challenge the revisional order passed by the first respondent Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited in short (TASMAC). Subsequently, he took out an application in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011 for amending the prayer to include the original dismissal order as well as the appellate order and that application was ordered on 07.06.2011. 3.The reason for which the petitioner was dismissed was that while remitting the money collected during the sale of liquor and was to be paid to the Indian Bank Pudukkottai, he prepared his own rubber stamp and falsified the challan thereby misappropriated several amounts. On 16.12.2004, a sum of Rs.27,019/- and on 04.01.2005, a sum of Rs.10,602/- and on 25.02.2005, a sum of Rs.8,659/- which was to be paid to the bank was misappropriated by him and he prep...
S.Thirumalaiappan Vs. Secretary to Government.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the communication dated 04.05.2007 sent by the fourth respondent namely, the Treasury Officer, Tirunelveli as well as the communication sent by the second respondent, Commissioner of Treasury & Accounts, dated 09.06.2009 and for setting aside the same and also seeks for a direction to grant compassionate allowance to the petitioner within a time frame. 2. The writ petition came up on 29.10.2009, this Court ordered notice of motion. On notice form this Court, the second respondent filed the counter affidavit dated 09.02.2010. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner, who was working as an accountant under the fourth respondent office, was placed under suspension on 28.11.1991 in connection with misappropriation of Government money while disbursing pension. Disciplinary action was initiated against him and a criminal case was also initiated against him for misappropriation, cheating and forgery punis...
R.StalIn Vs. the Chief Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The petitioner was an NMR employee as Jeep driver attached to the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Vaipparu Basin Circle, Virudhunagar District. The total period of employment put in by the petitioner between October 2000 to August 2002 is for only 201 days and the petitioner subsequently moved the Labour Court at Madurai that C.P.No.76 of 2004 claiming salary for 51 days for the period for which he was not paid and the entire salary claim was Rs.4080/- for the period of 51 days. At any point of time, the petitioner had any continuous service nor his service was terminated by the respondent. But long after the petitioner non employment of three years, the Labour Court ordering payment of 51 days wages. The petitioner sent a representation, dated 25.06.2009 seeking for regularisation of employment in the post of Jeep driver. When the petitioner's representation was not considered, he filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(MD)No.8210 of...
S.V.Veerasekar Vs. Sriman Narayana Madam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant made an endorsement as No instructions. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the second appeal has to be dismissed for default as the appellant/defendant indulged in dilatory tactics. The following are the docket entries on various dates: 22.09.2011: No representation for the appellant. Post the matter on 29.09.11 under the caption for dismissal. 29.09.2011: The learned Counsel for the appellant seeks time on the ground that his senior is out of station. It is opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. However, considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, post it immediately after Pooja Vacation, i.e. 10.10.2011. Remove the caption for dismissal. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted. 10.10.2011: At the hearing, there is no representation for the appellant side. On the previous occasion, the appellant counsel prayed time to arg...
Kamala Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The petitioner, who is the resident of Pudhukudiyerppu, Pannaikulam Post, Ramanathapuram District, is an aspirant for the post of Noon Meal Organizer in the vacancy that was created in the Panchayat Union Primary School at Pudhukudiyerupu. The petitioner along with the third respondent went for the selection process. Ultimately, by the order dated 05.11.2009, the third respondent was selected. Aggrieved by the selection made in favour of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner also went under Right to Information Act and from the office of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, she got an information regarding the appointment of the third respondent and at the time of submitting the application, the third respondent had enclosed a widow certificate. Therefore, it was submitted by the petitioner that the third respondent was no more a widow and she married to one Salaman and also having children out of the new wedlock and the...
S.Ramathayammal Vs. A.Durairaj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. Impugning the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2004 and made in A.S.No.150 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 12.11.2003 and made in O.S.No.198 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam, this second appeal has been preferred by the defendants. 2.The suit in O.S.No.198 of 1997 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants seeking the relief of specific performance of contract of sale and directing the appellants/defendants to execute the sale deed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- from the court in respect of the schedule mentioned property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and in the event, the appellants/defendants are failing to do so within the stipulated time, which may be fixed by the court, the court may itself execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule...
A.Mariya Thangam Vs. Annammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The gist and kernel, the pith and marrow of the averments made in the plaint filed by the appellants herein would run thus: The suit properties comprised of 10 items, originally belonged to one S.A.Arockiam. The plaintiffs are the children of the said Arockiam. The 1st defendant is the daughter-in-law, the defendants 2 to 4 are the paternal grand- children, the defendants 5 to 7 are the great-grand-children, of the said Arockiam. No partition took place among them in respect of the suit properties. The fourth defendant for himself and on behalf of the defendants 5 to 7, out of their undivided share, sold an extent of 7 cents of land in item No.1 in favour the 8th defendant and another 9 cents of land in item No.1 in favour of the 9th defendant. 2. The plaintiffs sought for the following reliefs: (a) preliminary decree for partition of their 3/4th share in the suit properties and for separate possession. (b) final decree for separate possession, if the defendants fail to give separat...
K.Chandra Vs. the District Collector.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. The petitioner, who is an aspirant for the appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Panaikulam Anganwadi Centre, run under the control of the third respondent, viz., the Integrated Child Development Project Officer, Kadaladi, Ramnad District, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to appoint her to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Panaikulam Anganwadi Centre. 2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 25.03.2010, notice of motion was ordered. Pending the notice, an interim injunction was granted for four weeks. 3. On notice, the second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit dated 03.11.2010. In the counter-affidavit, it was stated that the official respondents have appointed one A.Kaliammal as Anganwadi Worker. On coming to know the appointment of the said person, the petitioner filed an application in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011, seeking to implead the successful candidate and that application was ordered by this Court. Accordingly, the fourth responden...
E. Gunasekaran and Another Vs. P. Saravanan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 16.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of appellants side and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for direction to refund the excess amount of Rs.27,041.55 by the 1st opposite party for the undivided land cost for the car park together with interest and directing the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of unfinished works in the construction together with interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and non compliance of terms and conditions of the agreement for sale regarding the flat and Rs.5,000/- as costs. 3. Complainant entered in to an agreement for the purchase of flat and construction from opposite party on 11.5.2006. Regard...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »