Chennai Court November 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.
S.Subburani Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. The petitioner has chosen to challenge the appointment of the third respondent as Anganwadi Assistant in the Centre attached to Thirchittrampalam colony attached to the Tenkasi Taluk.2. The contention raised by the petitioner was that while she belongs to the colony and the third respondent belong to the main village as she being closer to the Centre, she should be preferred. Though a reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.203 Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme (SW-7) Department, dated 19.08.2005, the said Government Order does not help the case of the petitioner.3. The Government Order only lays down the guidelines. Insofar as a particular centre in a village has concerned, as far as possible, the person in the same village should be appointed. Only if no one was available, the question of preferring a person from other village will arise.4. In fact in respect of the arguments addressed by persons belonging to the main village to exclude the persons from the colony from being considered ...
C.Manimegalai Vs. the Joint Director of Secondary Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same person. At present, she is the Tamil Pandit working in the fifth respondent School. The fifth respondent School is admittedly an Aided Private School coming under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules, 1974 framed thereunder. Aggrieved over the order passed by the first respondent, the Joint Director of Secondary Education, (Appellate Authority), she has preferred the first Writ Petition being W.P.(MD)No.2080 of 2008, wherein under Rules 15(4)(i) and 18, the authority rejected her appeal by order dated 07.02.2008 by holding that there is no infringement of any rule in appointing the fourth respondent as the Headmaster of the school. The first respondent also stated that the petitioner, having relinquished her claim for promotion, should not be heard to contend that the relinquishment was only temporary.2. The said Writ Petition was admitted on 06.03.2008. Pending the ...
S.Antonysamy Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. The petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Assistant in Keelakurichi Bavajikottai Panchayat Board coming under the Melanatham Panchayat Union, vide order, dated 28.02.1990. He was initially given consolidated salary of Rs.400/- per month. Subsequently, it transpires that the petitioner did not report for duty on account of his road accident on 20.01.2004. He was treated in the Government Medical College Hospital at Thanjavur for one month. During the treatment as inpatient, his wife informed the President of Keelakurichi Panchayat about the accident and submitted a leave letter. It is also stated that the President of Keelakurichi Panchayat informed her that after his getting cured, he can report for duty. In the meanwhile, another person was appointed in the place of the petitioner. When the petitioner had reported for duty, he was not allowed to join. Thereafter, he sent representations curiously after 2 years. The first representation being made on 09.10.2006 and the second repr...
C.R.Anitha Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner, who hails from Kanyakumari District and after having secured an employment as a Secondary Grade Teacher by selection made by the Teachers' Recruitment Board, has come forward to file the present Writ Petition.2. In this Writ Petition, the prayer made by the petitioner was a direction to respondents 2 to 6 to consider her claim for appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Tamil medium in anyone of the vacancies available in Kanyakumari District, which are sought to be filled up by G.O.Ms.No.220, School Education (S2) Department, dated 10.11.2008.3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 14.07.2009, notice of motion was ordered. Pending the notice of motion, no interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioner, though applications to that effect were filed by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that she is a qualified teacher and has registered her name in the District Employment Exchange, Kanyakumari on 11.06.1987. Sub...
Abdul Kareem Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the first respondent to produce Subaida Banu, aged about 33 years, the wife of the petitioner, and his children, namely, Faisal Ameen, aged about 9 years, and Sana, aged about 5 years, before this Court and to set them at liberty.2. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent has been keeping the detenus in illegal custody. In spite of a complaint having been made to the first respondent, regarding the illegal custody of his wife and children, by the second respondent, no action has been taken by the first respondent to procure the detenus and to set them at liberty. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court.3. From the available records, it is seen that the petitioner had filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, in H.C.P.(MD)No.71 of 2010, in which, a direction has been issued by this Court, by its order, dated 16.2.2010, directing the respondent police to inves...
N.Manickkammal Vs. the Assistant Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. The Writ Petition is filed by the former President of Melathirumanickam Village. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 15.06.2001 passed by the Assistant Director, Rural Development (Audit), Usilampatti, Madurai District as well as a communication dated 29.10.2008 sent by the second respondent, the Block Development Officer (Panchayats), Sedapatti Panchayat Union, Sedapatti, Madurai District.2. When the matter came up for admission on 12.11.2008, the learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice. Subsequently, it was admitted on 18.03.2009. Pending the notice, an order of interim stay was granted. On notice from this Court, the second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit dated 21.11.2008, together with the typed-set of papers in support of the averments made in the counter-affidavit.3. First of all, the petitioner has not made clear as to why she has now come forward to challenge the proceedings dated 15.06.2001, which was issued seven years b...
Dr.indra Raja Vs. John Yesurethinam Alias
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original plaintiffs animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008, passed in A.S.No.5 of 2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram in confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007, passed in O.S.No.22 of 2006 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A thumb-nail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the Second Appeal would run thus:The plaintiffs filed the suit for bare injunction based on the averments that the defendant, who is the neighbouring land owner to the suit property which belongs to the plaintiffs, is trying to trespass and cause act of waste.4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement on the ground that the deceased father of the defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' Sche...
R.Pitchai Vs. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. The petitioner R.Pitchai aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.AB1/46341/2009 dated 4.8.2010 and the third respondent/the District Forest Officer, Madurai Division, Madurai in his proceedings No. Se.Mu.Order No.962/10 Pa2 dated 28.09.2011, has come to this Court by filing this present writ petition.2. Heard Mr.M.Ravi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.3. By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner suffered a charge memo No.3743/2009/Pa2 dated 25.05.2009 consisting of two charges which are as follows:Charge No.1: The Forest Guard had committed dereliction of duty by permitting the village people to encroach and construct the permanent structure of steps, which had no right of way, to reach the Mahalingam temple at Sit...
M.Thirunavukkarasu Vs. the District Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. There are four Writ Petitions filed by four Writ Petitioners seeking similar relief to issue writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondent from awarding licence in respect of bar attached to TASMAC Shop Nos.6525,6692,6515 and 6513 Pudukkottai in favour of any participant in tender who has not produced consent letter/No Objection Certificate from the owner of the building where TASMAC bar is located and consequently to direct the respondent to declare the successful tenderers in respect of shop Nos.6525,6692,6515 and 6513, Pudukkottai District.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after respondent issued notification in his proceedings, dated 09.08.2011 inviting applications for grant of licence to collect empty bottles and to sell eatables at the bars attached to the TASMAC shops in Pudukkottai District, the petitioners after filling up the applications, submitted the same before the respondent on 29.08.2011. Though the tender notice contains several conditions of elig...
S.Vairapalam and ors. Vs. the Executive Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. We have to take a practical review of the matter. Most people do not have the money to purchase meat from other cities or other States and bring it to Ahmedabad. Almost all meat-eaters get their meat from the local butcher shop in the city, usually from a shop which is close to their residence. Hence, closure of the slaughter house, in substance, means compelling the non-vegetarians to become vegetarians for 9 days-- Supreme Court in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh's case.These observations made by the Supreme Court will set the tone for these judgments. In these batch of writ petitions the competing interests of shop- keepers claiming right to sell fish and fowl in various wards within the limits of the town panchayat with conditions of licence and the desire of the town panchayat to relocate them to its shopping area located outside its limits are clashing with each other.2.The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are all traders in selling in meat, poultry and fish within the Town P...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »