Chennai Court November 2011 Judgments
Smt. Pushpam Vs. the Chairman Tamilnadu Housing Board and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
(The appellant as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to relay the ceiling, give alternative accommodation, to pay Rs.50000/- towards the expenditure incurred, alongwith compensation of RS.3 lakhs, to reduce the cost and refund Rs.1 lakh, to register the sale deed and handover the same, and to pay RS.5000 as cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, granted compensation, but no order was passed regarding execution of sale deed. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to modify, and issue suitable direction to the opposite parties, against the order of the District Forum dt.17.8.2009 in CC.No.32/1998. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 02.11.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHA...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Sapper M. Kannan Vs. the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts a ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. This application is for disability pension. According to the applicant, he got enrolled in the Army MEG and Centre, Bangalore, on 5th January 1974 as a BOY at the age of 16 years and got attested as a trained Soldier on 5th March 1977. He had served in 3 Engineer Regiment at J and K Area and Ahemdabad area. He indulged actively in sports activities particularly in boxing (Lt. Fly). In 1978 he took part in boxing tournament in Poona and was severely wounded and his health got shattered which forced him to go on Annual Leave. When he reached his home, he got severe headache and he went to the nearest Air Force Command Hospital, Bangalore, where he was admitted and got treatment and he was slowly down graded to lowest medical category EEE and was boarded out of service on 12th November 1981. At the time of Release Medical Board, the assessment of the medical disability was 30%. Totally the applicant had served for 7 years 10 months an...
Tag this Judgment!K.R.Krishnamoorthy Vs. the Director General
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order passed by the second respondent Chief Engineer (General), Highways Department, Chennai, dated 28.6.2010. By the impugned order, the second respondent informed the petitioner that since the petitioner has been working as an Overseer under the Rural Development Department for more than 12 years and as per the existing rules, if a person goes from one service to an another foreign service and continues to serve for more than five years, he will lose his right to get back to his original service. Since the petitioner has been working as an Overseer, he had lost his lien over the post of the Assistant Draughtsman. Even though he had expressed his desire to revert back to his parent department, since there is no post of Overseer in the Highways Department is vacant and since he has been working in the post of Junior Draughting Officer from 2007 continuously, his seniority in the Highways Department will be re...
Tag this Judgment!The Director of Elementary Education. Vs. K.Kaliswari.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. These nine review applications were filed by the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai, the District Elementary Education Officer, Dindigul and the Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Natham, seeking to review the common order passed by this court dated10.10.2006 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.7628 to 7636 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, this court directed the review petitioners to approve the appointments of the contesting first respondents in sanctioned posts and pass orders within four weeks.2.The review applications were admitted by the learned judge, who had granted directions, on 22.12.2006 and notices were ordered to the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents were represented by M/s.S.N.Ravichandran and K.K.Kannan. On notice being serviced, on behalf of the contesting first respondent, a common written submission was also filed by the counsel for the first respondents.3.When the matter came up for final disposal on 04.11.2011, in order to find out whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Maniyara Manickam Vs. the Managing Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to appoint him with effect from 25.05.1997 instead of 10.09.2007 with all service benefits on par with persons who had gone for selection along with him in the interview conducted on 13.08.1997.2. The petitioner had several rounds of litigations before this Court. First the petitioner filed W.P.(MD).13337 of 1997 to permit him to continue to participate in the interview and the selection process conducted, pursuant to the communication dated 01.08.1997 including to undergo the practical test for driving vehicle by holding that the petitioner had a heavy duty licence. In that writ petition the respondents were directed to conduct the interview for the petitioner also.3. Subsequently, the said writ petition came to be disposed on 07.08.1999, wherein it was observed as follows:-“Hence I see no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner could not be co...
Tag this Judgment!Sahadevan Vs. Minor P. Sivanandam and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 27.09.2011, 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 J A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. On behalf of the minor 1st complainant his father 2nd complainant filed a complaint against 1st and 2nd opposite parties claiming direction to pay compensation of Rs.19,99,000/- for deficiency, negligence in service, unfair trade practice committed by them in giving treatment for the 1st complainant and Rs.1,000/- as costs. 3. While the 1st complainant playing for in his school premises on 12.11.2007 fell down around 12.30 pm and for his severe pain in the left fore arm he was taken to 1st opposite party who is claimed to be Naturo cure expert. After receiving Rs.100/- as fee he had given treatment by using oil and cloth to wrap around the injured and affected areas o...
Tag this Judgment!Cox and Kings India Ltd. Vs. Dr. Lakshminarayanan and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
(The 1to 6 Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties for refund of tour price, alongwith compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.18.11.2009 in CC.No.242/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 01.11.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1 to 6 respondents/ complainants, filed a case, against the opposite parties for the recovery of certain amounts, as detailed in paragraph 9 of the complaint, on the following averments, in brief: 3. The complainants, attracted by the attractive advertisement made by the 1...
Tag this Judgment!M.B.Ravi Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 3.6.2010 issued by the second respondent.2.By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that he was awarded with punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Inspite of the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioner had ended in acquittal, a specific punishment was given to him and a show cause notice was also issued to him on 23.04.2010. Thereafter, he submitted an explanation on 7.5.2010 requesting to settle the suspension period as duty as the criminal case was ended in acquittal. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order, it was stated as follows: 3.As he was awarded with a specific punishment in PR.No.28/09 u/r.17(b) the suspension for the contemplation of which the suspension was resorted to the period from 27.06.08 to 11.01.2010 AN spent by him is hereby ordered to be treated as eligible leave including...
Tag this Judgment!S.Lakshmi Vs. the Senior Divisional Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 22.7.2009 as well as the consequential order dated 18.4.2011 passed by the respondent Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madurai.2.By the impugned order dated 22.7.2009, it was informed that the petitioner was working as a Stenographer recruited under the Scheduled Caste reserved quota on the basis of the community certificate dated 27.06.1989 issued by the Tahsildar certifying that she belonged to Hindu Puthirai Vannan Community, which is enumerated scheduled caste and that her community certificate was cancelled by the District Level Vigilance Committee, Thoothukudi vide proceedings dated 19.6.2009. Therefore, since she had secured entry under the scheduled caste quota by producing false certificate, her services were dismissed by invoking the power under section 39(1)(g) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.3.The petitioner subsequent...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Vs. the State and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, by name Udaiyar, S/o.Madasamy, aged about 28 years, who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), on the orders of the first respondent, by his proceedings in M.H.S.Confdl.No.21 of 2011, dated 30.06.2011. Now, he has been lodged at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.2. After the Detention Order was passed, the detenu made a representation to the Government on 28.07.2011 and the same was received by the Government on 01.08.2011, upon which remarks were called for from the Detaining Authority on 02.08.2011 and the remarks were received by the Government on 04.08.2011. Thereafter, the said representation was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 05.08.2011 and the same was rejected by the Hon'ble Minister on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »