Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
T.Athimuthu. Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. The petitioner was who employed as a Grade I Police Constable, has filed the present writ petition challenging an order of the first respondent, dated 2.8.2009 and confirmed by the order of the second respondent, dated 25.9.2009 as well as the order of the third respondent, dated 10.9.2010 and seeks to set aside the same. 2. When the matter came up on 6.12.2010, notice was given. On notice from this court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 18.2.2011. By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years. The charge against the petitioner was that while the petitioner was in Senkottai Police Station, the petitioner was directed by the Inspector of Police to go along with an Head Constable Subramanian to Velayuthapuram in Ambasamudram and trace out one Sheila, Wife of Balan, who was issued summons in connection with investigation in Senkottai police station Crime No.398/2008 under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Jerina Begum. Vs. V.Sultan Abdul Kadar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.22 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, seeking a decree for mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up by the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein had entered appearance through a counsel and filed the written statement. The suit was listed for trial on 10.11.2006 and as the Presiding Officer was on leave, it was adjourned to 13.11.2006 and on that date, the respondent herein was examined and documents were marked and the suit was adjourned to 15.11.2006 for cross-examination of P.W.1 and on that date, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein reported no instructions and hence the suit was decreed exparte. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Interim Application to set aside the exparte decree with a petition in I.A.No.168 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 81 days in filing the petition to set-aside the exparte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jayakumar. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 26.7.2007 passed by the second respondent insofar as it denies the petitioner's right of regularisation of service as Lecturer in Botony with effect from 19.9.2003 and direct the second respondent to regularise the petitioner's service with effect from 19.9.2003 to 30.7.2007 with all monetary benefits.2.The case of the petitioner is that he has passed M.Sc. Botony and M.Phil degrees from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, and he was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Botony in the 4th respondent Aided Minority College with effect from 19.9.2003 in the vacancy that arose due to the retirement of one N.Stephen Julius on 17.9.2003. The petitioner joined duty on 19.9.2003. The sanctioned posts in the Department of Botony in the 4th respondent aided college was six as per the staff fixation order passed by the second respondent dated 18.5.2000. There was no reduction of student strength as well as the norms ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya College of Education. Vs. the Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 28.10.2009 and consequently direct the first respondent to grant approval for the proposal of imposing punishment of dismissal from service of the third respondent on the basis of the proven charges.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner College is a private college established and administered by the Ramakrishna Mission, which is a registered society. The petitioner college is an autonomous college affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University, recognised by the NCTE and accredited with A Plus grade of NAAC. The institution was established in the year 1950 and granted autonomous status in the year 1981.(b) The third respondent was employed in the petitioner institution as a Reader in History Department. A Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the third respondent by the College Committee for certain delinquencies a...
Tag this Judgment!K.Murugesan. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Sanitary Worker in the 2nd respondent Temple with effect from 5.4.1996. Thereafter he was posted as Token Stamper. Subsequently, he was also posted as Driver from the year 2004. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.26557 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 19.4.2007 to regularize his service, in the light of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.22, P&AR; Department dated 25.2.2006. This Court without going into the merits of the case, by an order dated 8.8.2007 directed the respondents to consider his representation in accordance with law.2.Thereafter, it transpires that the 1st respondent Executive Officer has also recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization and also to grant appropriate exemption from the educational qualification vide his recommendation dated 31.3.2008. The petitioner was consistently making representations to the respondents. In ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K.S.K. Leather Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. The assessees filed a claim for refund of Rs.1,64,861/- under the provisions of Notification No.41/2007-ST dt. 6.10.2007 as amended, on 19.3.2009 - the service tax was paid by the assessees on sales commission for exports effected under shipping bills dt. 15.7.2007 and 26.7.2007. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim both on the ground that the taxable service in respect of which the claim was allowed was inserted in Notification No.41/07 only w.e.f. 1.4.2008 and hence services provided for export of goods effected prior to 1.4.2008 would not qualify for refund, and also on the ground of time-bar. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessees accepted that they were not eligible to claim refund under the above mentioned notification and only pleaded that they were entitled to refund in terms of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The lower appellate authority whose order is under challenge in the present appeal rejected the claim on the ground that Notification No.5/...
Tag this Judgment!The Hdfc Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. J. Raghavan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
(Prayer: The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation, abnormal delay in issuing termination of loan agreement, and for non receipt of other documents received as security at time of availing loan to the complainant, and to pay the cost. 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.08.01.2008 in C.C.107/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is targeted against the order of the District Forum in OP.107/2006, wherein, direction has been issued, against the opposite party/appellant to pay compensati...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Employees Union. Vs. M.A.Zubaida Ammal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. This First Appeal (Appeal Suit) arises out of the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007 made in O.S.No.15373 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Madras.2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:(i) The suit property bearing Old Door No.317, New Door No.138, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-600 001 was purchased by the second defendant under a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1965 subject to the mortgage deed in favour of Madras Purasawalkam Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi (hereinafter referred to as 'The Nidhi'). The suit property was purchased by the second defendant with the funds belonging to the first defendant and therefore, the second defendant executed a Release Deed in favour of the first defendant on 05.01.1979. (ii) In order to discharge the various mortgages created by the second defendant and his predecessor in title, the first and second defendants have entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiffs on 09.07.1976 for Rs.4,75,000/- subject ...
Tag this Judgment!A.Kalai Mary. Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the materials taken away on 7.2.2009 from the shop portion at 3/2, Jones Road, West Saidapet, Chennai-15. 2. Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate, appears on behalf of the third respondent. 3. Petitioner claims to be a tenant in shop situated at 3/2, Jones Road, West Saidapet, Chennai-15 owned by one Mr.Sampathraj. Petitioner was running a sweet stall since 2002. According to the petitioner, in the year 2007, the first respondent Corporation of Chennai, wanted to undertake subway work. The authorities, however, proceeded to demolish the shop without giving proper notice to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Rs.2,00,000/- worth of materials were inside the shop and that has been taken away by the respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner has also given a police complaint to the Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!M.Ravi, and ors. Vs. K.Kaleeswarasubramanian.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.3823 & 6508 of 2008, were filed challenging the order of the Director of Local Fund Audit Department, Chennai-108 dated 18.12.2007, which is the inter-se seniority list, insofar as it relates to Sl.Nos.109 to 280 and also G.O.Ms.No.261 Finance (Local Fund) Department, dated 24.6.2009 and the consequential temporary regularization of appointment of candidates in Sl.Nos.109 to 280 with retrospective effect and also for revising and refixing the seniority in accordance with the quota and rota prescribed under the Special Rules for the post of Deputy Inspector of Local Fund Audit in both the cases and this Court by order dated 26.02.2010, disposed of the said writ petitions and the operative portion of the order is as follows:"19. For the reasons aforesaid, these writ petitions stand disposed with the following directions:(i)the impugned G.O.Ms.No.261, Finance (Local Fund) Department, dated 24.06.2009 and the consequential temporary regularization order dat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »