Chennai Court December 2011 Judgments
S.Vaitheki Vs. the Chief Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-2011
The petitioner is an applicant for the post of Physical Education Teacher in the third respondent school. The third respondent school is a Private Higher Secondary School and aided by the State Government and governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder.2.The petitioner earlier filed the writ petition before this Court being W.P.(MD)No.13682 of 2010 seeking for a direction to the third respondent school to conduct appropriate interview under the supervision of the 1st and 2nd respondents for the post of Physical Education Teacher and also to give priority to the petitioner by considering her temporary service rendered to the school. It is the claim of the petitioner that she has worked 401 days in the school as temporary capacity. Therefore, she is eligible for priority consideration. But however, when the writ petition came up on 07.01.2011, she withdrew the writ petition with liberty to challenge the appoin...
Tag this Judgment!P. Stephen (Died) Rep. by Legal Heir Reginamary Stella Stephen Vs. Abt ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-2011
(This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 23.11.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the material papers on records, this commission made the following order:) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties, claiming direction for payment of Rs.5 lakhs, as compensation towards loss sustained for the defective vehicle, purchased from the opposite party. 3. The case of the complainant: The complainant purchased a vehicle MMV Goods carriage bearing Regn. No.TN37 AM 1771, on 22.9.2005, from the 1st opposite party, for which the 2nd opposite party manufacturer, and from the beginning itself, the back tyre of the vehicle became deprecate often, tyres have to be changed, and thereby the complainant had to spend R.2,50,000/- by replacing atleast 40 tyres, for the same. Hence he has come forward with this complaint, claiming reliefs as a...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs. P. Jagannathan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-2011
This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 14.11.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the material papers on records, this commission made the following order: A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ respondent filed a complaint against the opposite party, claiming Rs.197000/- as compensation for mental agony, and to refund excess amount of RS.2607/-, and cost for the deficiency of service of the opposite party. 3. The complainant obtained loan for the purchase of a computer, on the basis of payment of EMI for Rs.31,281/- to be payable at Rs.2607/- as EMI in 9 instalments from 20.8.2005 to 7.4.2006, for which he has given post dated cheques, payable through Indian Overseas Bank, in which he is having account. Accordingly all the cheques were cleared by his bank, on the opposite parties presentation on the due dates, and the opposite party failed to give credit of Rs.2607/- for t...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Airtel, Santhome High Road, Chennai Vs. G. Kamarasu and O ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-2011
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Krishnagiri, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties 1 to 3 and prayed for a directin against them to refund Rs.551/-, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties individually or jointly to refund Rs.551/-, Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 3rd opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Krishnagiri dated 29.2.2008 in C.C.No.26/2007. This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 16.12.2011 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order :) TMT.VASUGI RAMANAN, MEMBER : 1.Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows :- The complainant alleged that he recharged his simcard for a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Abubucker Sithick and ors. Vs. the State and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
The petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16737 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioners, who are the accused in crime No.77 of 2010 of the 1st respondent police, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.36 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, which was taken on file on the basis of the charge sheet filed in the said crime number. 2.The petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16827 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner/Accused Nos.1 to 10, seeking to quash the charge sheet filed in crime No.78 of 2010 of the 1st respondent police in the Sessions Case No.325 of 2011, pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C. 3.The petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16828 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in J.C.No.264 of 2011, taken on file by the Juvenile Justi...
Tag this Judgment!Ayisha Beevi and ors. Vs. Sheik Mydeen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
The civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application filed by the legal representatives of the judgment debtor, seeking restitution under Section 144, CPC. 2. Heard Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.A.Arumugham, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 3. One Mr.Sheik Mytheen and his mother Mytheen Beevi filed a suit in O.S.No.420 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, against one Shahul Hameed, praying for a decree of recovery of possession, together with mesne profits. The plaint schedule described the property sought to be recovered as a Coffee Shop building located on the South-eastern portion of a land of an extent of 14. cents in Survey No.19/1, Thakkalai, situate on the North of Thuckalay-Thiruvananthapuram Road, on the West of Azhagiya Mandapam-Mekka Mandapam Road, on the East of Survey No.20 and on the South...
Tag this Judgment!Panner Selvam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
The criminal revision has been preferred under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order, dated 17.03.2010 made in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2009 in S.C.No.155 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge / F.T.C.No.1, Madurai. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein had been arrayed as A2 in the case pending before the Court below and subsequently, arrayed as A1 and he is facing charges under Sections 120 (B) r/w 364, 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC, as per the final report (charge sheet). The petition in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking discharge. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father Andi Thevar was originally arrayed as A1 in the case pending before the Court below and after the death of Andi Thevar, the petitioner became...
Tag this Judgment!M.Mohandas Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
This intra court appeal challenges the order dated 16 July 2010 in W.P.No.23258 of 2001, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of discharge from service. THE FACTS :- 2.The appellant is stated to be an Ex-Serviceman. After his discharge from military service, he joined the service of State Bank of India on 19 August 1994 at their branch at Gajalnaickanpatti. He was transferred to Hosur branch during the year 1998. 3.While the appellant was working as Watchman in the Hosur Branch of State Bank of India, he was issued with a charge memo on 15 June 1999. There were two substantial charges : one relating to failure on his part to deposit the amount paid by one Jayapal to deposit in his recurring account and the other relating to acceptance of loan from the customers of Bank. The appellant submitted his explanation to the charge memo. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report on the basis of the voluntary statement ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansur Ali Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
The appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.173 of 2011 is the first accused, the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.435 of 2010 is the second accused, and the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.407 of 2010 is the third accused, in S.C. No.41 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. 2.By judgment dated 16.09.2010, the Trial Court has convicted the first accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for two months. The accused 2 and 3, have been convicted under Sections 377 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, the accused 2 and 3 have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo further R.I. for two months. For offence under Section 377 IPC, the accused 2 and 3 have been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo further R.I. for two months. The sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!G.Velmurugan Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-2011
The petitioner in all these writ petitions are one and the same person. He claiming himself as the Headmaster of the third respondent school at Muthusamipuram, Virudhunagar District. The petitioner filed the first writ petition (W.P.(MD).No.13796 of 2010) seeking for a direction to the third respondent school to send the proposal of the School Committee resolution dated 31.05.2010 to the second respondent namely, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Rajapalayam for grant of approval and proposal to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders. 2. The petitioner also filed W.P.(MD).No.13797 of 2010 seeking to set aside the order of the third respondent dated Nil (November 2010), wherein the charge memo has been framed by the Correspondent of the School. The Charge number 8 relates to the petitioner refusing to sign in the minutes of the School Committee relating to the promotion to the post of Headmaster and the Charge number 9 relates to non attending the School Committee. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »