Chennai Court October 2011 Judgments
Renganathan Vs. the Joint Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondent, from in any manner finalizing the proceedings for determination of land holding under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling) Act, Act 58 of 1960 and the amendment Act 17 of 1970 pursuant to his notice dated 14.03.2011 in No.A2/158/2011, without hearing the objections and statement of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondent. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the co-owner of the land in question. Therefore, when notice was issued calling upon the petitioner and his father to submit their explanation, the petitioner has submitted his explanation viz., 18.04.2011, 16.06.2011 and 10.09.2011. 5. Therefore, the only grievance made by the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Seeniraj Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.B1/2389/2011, dated 30.08.2011 to quash the same as illegal and in violation of principle of law and further to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Village Assistant in the Kottaipatti Village Panchayat with all service benefits from the date of suspension (i.e., 28.07.2008) within a stipulated period.2. Heard Mr.M.Jothi Basu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Alagathevan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents.3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.4. The present Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.B1/2389/2011, dated 30.08.2011 to quash the same as illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice and with a further direction to the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G. Azzi Kannammal Senior Civil Surgeon Holy Redeemer Hospital and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
The 1 to 3 Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said order, these appeals are preferred by the opposite parties 2 and 4 separately in F.A.No.667/2007, and by 3rd opposite party in F.A.No.738/2008 praying to set aside the orders of the District Forum dt.4.10.2007 in O.P.No.58/2004. These appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 08.09.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, upon perusing the written arguments, documents, and lower court records, this commission made the following order: COMMON ORDER M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties 2, 4 and 3rd opposite party are the appellants in FA No.667/2007 and 738/2008, respectively. 2. Brief facts, leading to this appeal: Tmt. Abhirami, (hereinafter called patient) Daughter of the 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!Hitech Diagnostic Centre, Rep. by Its Medical Director, Dr.S.P.Ganesan ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides 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 party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming compensation of Rs.43,130/- incurred towards medical expenses Rs.80,000/- towards loss of pay and Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and disabilities and Rs.5,000/- as costs for the deficiency of service in rendering medical service to the complainant by opposite party. 3. Complainant taken tests in the well women medical check up conducted by the opposite party on 20.3.06 being a physically handicapped person she was assisted by her husband for her movement. After the clinical examination is over when the complainant attended for Radiological test for scan test she was negligently mishandled by the oppos...
Tag this Judgment!Tsk Ramani and Another Vs. Dr.C.Christopher Mariadass, M.D., [General ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
The appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.4,90,000/- to the complainants towards compensation for the death of Tmt.Nagarathinam with accrued interest from the date of complaint, to till the date of realization and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.01.06.2009 in C.C.273/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainants are the appellants. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the case:- Tmt.Nagarathinam, wife of the second complainant, mother of the first complainant, consulted the o...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Chennai Ford and Another Vs. Dr. T.L. Ramachandran and Ot ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
(Both the appeals coming before us for hearing finally on 21.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides 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 F.A.No.73/2009 2nd opposite party is the appellant. F.A.No. 78/2010 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. In both the appeals 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the appellants filed these appeals against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in C.C.No.280/2007. 3. The complainant/1st respondent filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming direction to carry out effective repairs to his car TN-01-U-5047 without any further demand for the repeated repairs Rs.25,000/- as damages for deficiency of service and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and pain and sufferings and Rs.10,000/- as costs. 4. The complainant purchased a car bearing Registration No.TN-01-U-5047 manufactured by 1st opposite...
Tag this Judgment!Susila Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Noon Meal Organiser. She has applied for the said post and also participated in the selection held for the R.C.Primary School Centre at Aladithattu, Mudhalur Panchayat. When the petitioner found that the 3rd respondent was selected by the selection committee and recommended by the District Collector for appointment, she filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge her appointment, dated 01.09.2007 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to appoint her as a Noon Meal Organizer in the said centre coming under Sathankulam Panchayat Union. 2.This Court, when the matter came up on 23.10.2007, ordered Notice of Motion and granted interim stay for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that the interim order has extended. Aggrieved by the interim order, a vacate stay application has been filed by the official respondents 1 and 2 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 together with a supporting counter...
Tag this Judgment!P.Vijayalakshmi Vs. the Joint Director of Higher
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the 4th respondent, as P.G.Assistant in English by the 3rd respondent School. The 3rd respondent School is a Private School, governed by the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973. 2.The petitioner's initial prayer was for a declaration that the appointment of the 4th respondent was whimsical, ultravires and void ab initio. as he was appointed without even basic qualification and for a direction to the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of P.G.Asssitant (English), under Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974 with all monetary benefits. Subsequently, she filed an application in M.P.(MD)No.2/2011, seeking to amend the prayer in the Writ Petition, because, by the time, the appointment of the 4th respondent was approved by the District Educational Officer, Musiri. For which approval was granted on 24.03.2009 by ...
Tag this Judgment!A.Antony Savarimuthu Vs. the District Educational Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by a School Teacher who was appointed by the then Correspondent of Barenbruck Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli District vide order dated 12.08.2008. The order made by the then Correspondent stated that he was appointed as B.T.Assistant (Science) and his appointment will be subject to the approval of the District Educational Officer and his appointment is also subject to the Diocesan Rules. The power under which the said appointment was made is not stated in the impugned order. But subsequently, it transpires that there was a litigation between different factions of the church against the Bishop of Tirunelveli Diocese in several Courts. The petitioner by the impugned order dated 01.09.2008 was informed that his appointment was illegal as it was made by one S.Herbert Santhappa as correspondent and one A.Danial Sigamani Simeon as manager of the T.D.T.A schools was illegal and he cannot continue in the said appointment as the High Court was permitte...
Tag this Judgment!T.R.Veerakumar Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to make a reference to the Reference Court in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the properties situated in S.Nos.415/1 and 415/2 at Rajakalmangalam, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli Dsitrict.2.It is the case of the petitioner that the properties situated in S.Nos.415/1 and 415/2 at Rajakalmangalam belong to him. He had purchased the same through a sale deed, dated 3.7.1995. Since he was working as an Audit Officer under the Controller and Auditor General of India and serving different places, he could not follow the activities. The land was acquired for establishing an Industrial Park under the Special Economic Zone. An award was passed as early as 26.10.1998. Some of the affected land owners have raised objections regarding entitlement of payment of compensation. Therefore, a reference was made under Section 30.3.The petitioner for the first time sent a representation on 3.3.2010 clai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »