Chennai Court November 2011 Judgments
Subba Reddy Charities Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. Petitioner/Party-in-person has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to remove the illegal encroachments in R.S.No.87/B of Adyar and R.S.No.90 of Velachery [present Town Survey No.36 of Alandur] and to cancel the name of Gandhi Market and to direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to initiate appropriate steps in accordance with law for restoring the water body (Mangulam) to its original position and to recover the Trust property for charity. 2. Case of Petitioner is that his ancestor Subba Reddy has created a Trust and in this regard his ancestor Rangayya Reddiar has also left a Will dated 25.01.1922 in which reference is made about endowment of properties. The administration of the Trust is governed by High Court Scheme decree in C.S.No.180 of 1948 and C.S.No.247 of 1962. Case of Petitioner is that his grandfather had dug a Kulam (Tank) in R.S.No.90 and the same is mentioned in the Will dated 25.01.1922 [Doc.No.3 of 1922]. According to Petitioner when he was in abroad, two...
Tag this Judgment!Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Sankaranarayana Construction
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
R.MALA,J. 1.Challenge in this appeal is the Judgment and decreetal order passed in Tr.O.P.No.628 of 2008, dated 11.10.2009, in and by which, the learned single Judge permitted the Respondent herein to furnish Bank Guarantee in the very same execution proceedings, and withdraw the amount deposited therein by the Petitioner, who is the Appellant herein. 2.Appellant/Petitioner was awarded a contract for the construction of a Masonry Dam across the Tamiraparani river basin in Mekarai Village, Shenkottah Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Block nos. 11 to 18 were assigned by the Appellant/Petitioner to the Respondent, by way of sub-contract, under a Work Order dated 02.11.2000. Since dispute arose between the parties, compelling the Respondent herein to file an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By an order dated 16.04.2005 passed in O.P.No.538 of 2003, Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.V.Balasubramanian (Retired) was appointed as Arbitrator and he entered reference an...
Tag this Judgment!S.Thomson Vs. the Director General of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1.The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1987. While he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Airport Security at Meenambakkam Airport, on 8.9.2000 one captain Kumar, Operational Manager, Jet Airways entered Gate No.8 at Meenambakkam Airport without valid documents. According to the petitioner, he stopped his car and did not permit him to proceed further. But the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 14.10.2000 under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Rules) alleging that he permitted a private vehicle belonging to captain Kumar to gain entry into the operational area of Chennai Airport on 08.09.2000 without valid documents. The petitioner gave his explanation on 17.11.2000 denying the charges. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Airport Security imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect by an order dated 07.12.2...
Tag this Judgment!R.Rathakrishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. Heard Ms.Dakshayini Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, learned Addl.Advocate General, assisted by Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, learned Addl.Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The petitioner claiming to be a trader, has come forward with the present writ petition, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from passing any order for declaration of notified area under Sec.9(1)(d) of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.361, Agricultural (AM II) Department, dated 12.12.2008 (notified on 24.12.2008) as amended as per G.O.309, Agriculture AM (II) Department, dated 28.12.2010 notified on 16.02.20111 without considering the objections made by the petitioner dated 10.03.2009 and subsequent reminders as required under law. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pre independence period, erstwhile provincial Government of Presidency of Madras enacted Law c...
Tag this Judgment!A.Kalaiselvi Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. The petitioner was initially appointed as School Assistant on 5.8.1975 by order dated 1.8.1975 under Rule 10(a)(1) of General Rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. 2. The petitioner's father was working as Tamil pandit in Government High School, Latheri, Vellore District. He died on 26.8.1974 while in service. Hence the first respondent issued G.O.No.2391 Education Department dated 21.12.1979 providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner as School Assistant. The appointment was made by granting relaxation of condition No.5 specified in G.O.No.650 Labour and Employment dated 3.8.1977. The aforesaid condition stipulates that no one could be appointed on compassionate ground to a post higher than Junior Assistant. The said condition was relaxed and the petitioner was appointed by the aforesaid G.O.No.2391. 3. The petitioner requested the Government to regularise her services from the date of her initial appointment. The second respondent passed an order dated...
Tag this Judgment!K.Balasundaram Vs. Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. The Appellant/Defendant has filed the instant Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.06.2006 in A.S.No.11 of 2006 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai in O.S.No.27 of 2005, on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Devakottai. 2. Before the trial Court, in the main suit 1 to 3 issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff, witness P.W.1 has been examined and Ex.A.1 to A.3 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Ex.B.1 has been marked. 3. The trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to a resultant conclusion that the Appellant/Defendant himself has written Ex.A.1 Pronote dated 11.07.2002 and as such, he is liable to pay the pronote amount of Rs.27,390/- to the Respondent/Plaintiff. Further, the trial Court has directed the Appellant/Defendant to pay a sum of Rs.27,390/- to the Respondent/ Plaintiff and for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundaram Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1.The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 1st respondent refusing to resite the petitioner's retail outlet from the present location to another location. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he is a retail dealer under the 1st respondent. He entered into a lease agreement in respect of the property situate at R.S.No.649/6, Modakkurichi Village, Erode Taluk with one Shanmugam on 13.03.1984 for a period of 15 years and has been running the retail outlet 3.After the expiry of the lease period of 15 years, the petitioner continues to occupy the property. However, against Shanmugam a partition suit in O.S.No.50 of 1986 was filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents including the said property and finally the said proceedings ended in compromise before this Court in A.S.No.591 of 1992 on 20.04.2007. By the said compromise, the leased property was allotted to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. After the 2nd and 3rd respondents became the owners of the property, they tried to evict the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Seethalakshmi and ors. Vs. S.Vaithyanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendants 2 to 7 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2005, passed in A.S.No.192 of 2004 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2004, passed in O.S.No.294 of 1997 by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. 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 summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiff, who is the respondent herein filed the suit for obtaining delivery of possession seeking the following reliefs: “A. a decree declaring the title of plaintiff over 'B' schedule property and directing the defendant to deliver possession of 'B' schedule property with mesne profits at Rs.60/- per month. B. a decree of mandatory injunction dir...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary and Others Vs. Samuel Nadar and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
(Prayer: This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.11.2011, 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 orderJ M. Thanikachalam J. President 1. All the appellants in F.A.225/2010, F.A.232/2010 and F.A.323/2011 are all the opposite parties, in C.C.12/2007, C.C.13/2007 and F.C.71/2010 respectively. 2. This order shall dispose all the above three appeals. 3. The parties are referred, as arrayed in the C.Cs. before the District Forum. 4. The complainant[s] are all being agriculturist, have availed agricultural loan, from the first opposite party for the purpose of raising crops, by pledging their respective jewels, and the loan payable was in due, as on 31.03.2006. The Government of Tamil Nadu as per the G.O.98, dated 05.07.2006 wiped out all the debts, payable by agriculturist including jewel loan borrowed for agricultural purpose. Based upon the G.O., when requeste...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. Vs. Manish Thakkar and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
(The first respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to repay the sum of Rs.18,000/- for the actual loss of the baggage and to pay Rs.80,000/- towards mental agony and damages. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the first OP, against the said order, this appeal is preferred, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.2.12.2009 in C.C.77/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.11.2011, 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 first opposite party in C.C.77/2008 on the file of the District Forum, Salem, is the appellant. 2. The first respondent/complainant traveled after booking Air ticket through the second opposite party, in the Airlines operated by the first opposite party, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »