Chennai Court July 2011 Judgments
State Vs. Thalapathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. This criminal original petition has been filed by the State/investigating officer to set aside the order dated 22.07.201, passed in Cr.M.P.No.6567 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, dismissing the petitioner filed by the State for police custodial interrogation of the respondents, who are arrayed as A1, A3, A4 and A8 respectively in crime No.42 of 2011 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai District. 2.Mr.I.Subramanian, the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by one Pappa, a case has been registered against 12 persons, in crime No.42 of 2011, for the offence under Sections 120(B) 143, 109, 406, 420, 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and the respondents herein are arrayed as A1, A3, A4 and A8 and they were arrested on 19.07.2011 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day. 3.He would further submit that even though the investigating officer has filed the petition to take the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!P.Amutha Vs. the Area Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the demand notice, dated 21.02.2005 vide which the respondent has called upon the petitioner to clear the default. 2. The impugned notice stipulates, that in the event of non- payment of demanded amount within the stipulated period of 60 days, the respondent will proceed under the Scrutinisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002(hereinafter called as the 'Act'). 3. The non-compliance by the petitioner, of the demand notice, could give right to the respondent, to proceed under the 'Act', and takes possession. The petitioner in that event had the statutory remedy of appeal. The Writ petition is pre-mature as the order affecting the rights of the petitioner is yet to be passed. This Court cannot issue the Writ to bar a party to take statutory remedy in accordance with law, specially when, the Act under which action is proposed, gives statutory remedy to aggrieved...
Tag this Judgment!V.Ramesh Kumar Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari, challenging the list of candidates selected as Assistant Engineer(Electrical) by recruitment through Employment Exchange in the year 2005-2006. 3. Inspite of the fact that number of persons were selected vide the impugned list,the petitioner of his own has chosen to implead only the respondent No.3 as a party, to the Writ. 4. In support of the prayer, it is pleaded case of the petitioner, that he passed B.E. degree in Electronics and Communication in the year 1994. The petitioner thereafter got his name registered with the Employment Exchange for Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, Chennai. Petitioner was allotted Registration No.1994 PE 11400/94, which according to the petitioner was renewed periodically. That due to non-filling of posts, the petitioner could not get the opportunity of employment for the last 15 years. 5. The respondent No.1 and 2 advertised 3...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The case of the petitioner is that Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, was taken over by the Tuticorin Port Trust. 2.On formation of Tuticorin Port Trust, a statutory settlement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, stipulating, to take over the services of the employees, working with the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was, therefore, under obligation to give employment to all the employees, after screening test. 3.Under the statutory settlement, the 2nd respondent gave a list of 1926 employees, who were given employment, after screening test, conducted by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 could not be subject to screening test, as he was not on the roll of the respondent No.2, being absent from duty, on account of registration of a criminal case against him. 4.The respondent No.3, on acquittal, approached the respondent No.2, for being inducted into service. On the refusal, the 3rd respondent raised an industrial dispute. 5.In view of the fact that the r...
Tag this Judgment!G.RosalIn Vs. the Principal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.09.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No.11350 of 2010, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for a direction against the first respondent, the Principal of Holy Cross College (Autonomous), to permit her to continue and complete her study in the course of Bachelor of Rehabilitation Science. The appellant was admitted in the said course in the academic year 2009-2010, which is for a period of three years and it appears that she has completed her first and second semester. During the course when she was studying second year, she was informed by the College Management that the Government has refused to grant exemption to her in respect of the relaxation of age limit. Admittedly, as per the Government Order, the appellant has crossed the age of 24 years and, therefore, she was not eligible for admission. 2. It is the case of the Management that at the time of admissio...
Tag this Judgment!inter Christian Mission Middle School Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the G.O.Ms.No.53 School Education dated 26.04.2002. 2. A Central Government sponsored scheme - Sarva Shikshya Abhiyan (hereinafter referred to as SSA scheme ) is being implemented in the State of Tamil Nadu through a Society called Tamil Nadu State Mission of Education for all . The petitioner, which is a minority institution, is implementing the SSA Scheme in the school, run by it. 3. By way of the impugned Government Order, a Committee has been constituted to monitor the progress of the scheme. 4. The only ground of challenge to the formation of the Committee, is that the petitioner school is a minority institution, therefore, the Committee cannot interfere with the day to day functioning of the school. 5. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. A reading of the Government Order shows, that the Committee has no...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lobo and anr. Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. In this writ petition, the prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners, in pursuance to their selection as Office Assistants. 2. It is not in dispute, that the petitioners were duly selected, and were not appointed, due to pendency of litigations in Courts. 3. Now, the stand taken by the respondents, to deny the right of appointment, to the petitioners is that the posts, against which the petitioners were selected, have been filled up, by regularizing the services of daily wage employees. 4. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the petitioners want to withdraw this writ petition, to challenge the appointment of persons, to the posts, against which the petitioners already stood selected, and were not appointed, due to Court proceedings. 5. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw this writ petition, with liberty to challenge the o...
Tag this Judgment!The Madurai Poriyalar Nagar Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The petitioner/society has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order, granting conditional permission to respondent No.8 to raise construction for storing of petroleum products/lubricants. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the members of the petitioner/Association purchased plots from Housing Society on the basis of sanctioned site plan duly approved by the competent authority. In the sanctioned site plan, Plot No.70 and 71 were shown as shopping complex which were purchased by respondent No.8. 3. When respondent No.8 wanted to raise construction to set up a godown for storing petroleum products, the petitioner society filed objection with the competent authority i.e., with respondent No.5 against the proposed planning permission. The respondent No.5 did not take any action on the objection filed by the petitioner which forced the petitioner to file the writ petition No.43429 of 2002. 4. The Writ Petition ...
Tag this Judgment!R.Vasantha Rajendran Vs. the District Superintendent of Police and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to stop or control the noise pollution caused by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 by using amplifiers and loud speakers, outside the Natesar Alayam, Illathar Samudayam, Manavalakurichy, Kanyakumari District. 2.Para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition reads as under:- I also filed a suit as O.S.No.161 of 2004 before the I Additional District Munsif, Eraniel against the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, the first respondent herein and others, to give effect to GO MS.No3845, dated 29.11.1977 and various other Government Orders. The suit was partly decreed. The learned District Munsif granted decree for mandatory injunction against the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, to implement GO MS.No.3845, dated 29.11.1977 with other amendments from time to time relating to sound pollution in the matter of playing music and so...
Tag this Judgment!V.Sekar Vs. Madurai Kamaraj University
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order, dated 26.05.2005,terminating the service w.e.f.01.07.2001. 2. The facts which are not disputed are that while the petitioner was working as Professor with the Madurai Kamaraj University in the year 2001, the petitioner applied for study leave for research project. 3. The petitioner was sanctioned sabbatical leave from 01.07.2001 to 31.12.2001. The petitioner did not report back for duty on expiry of the leave, but joined as Visiting Professor in Marshall University, U.S.A. 4. Keeping in view the assignment, his request for retaining the lien on the post held by him was accepted. The University agreed to retain the lien for two years. from 01.07.2001 to 30.06.2003. 5. The petitioner was informed that as the petitioner had joined new employer, he was liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,69,338/- which was sanctioned to him towards the sabbatical...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »