Chennai Court July 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Capt. N. Gopalakrishnan (Retired) Vs. Union of India, Rep by the Secre ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. Counter filed. Even though the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash argued the case of the applicant during the previous occasion, he is absent today, but on behalf of the applicant an adjournment application M.A.No.59 of 2011 in O.A.No.22 of 2010 has been filed. But, We are not inclined to grant adjournment since We are not going to decide the application on merits. Adjournment Application M.A.No.59 of 2011 is dismissed. 2. The applicant, no doubt an octogenarian, has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned orders vide No.1(1)/2007-D (Pen/Policy) dated 20.05.2009 of the 2nd respondent, No.1(1)/2007-D (pen/policy), dated 03.09.2009 of the 2nd respondent, and Corrigendum PPO No.M/MODP/MNL/31/2009, dated 09.10.2009 of the 3rd respondent. 3. The facts in brief as per the affidavit filed by the applicant in O.A.22 of 2010 are that the applicant has joined the Indian Air Force on 14.08.1951 and completed his regular term of eng...
Mrs.Mangai @ Mangaiyarkarasi Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, T ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 30.06.2011, and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order. J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The complainant has filed a complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and praying for an order to allot alternative plot in lieu of plot No.13, of the same extent on that same price within the city in Chennai, and to pay Rs.11,40,000/- as loss of rental income, Rs.11,00,000/- for escalation of cost of construction, Rs.8,00,000/- for litigation expenses, Rs.3,00,000/- towards stamp duty and registration charges, Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.60,000/- towards traveling expenses, Rs.25,000/- as consultation fees for architect and Rs.25,000/- towards costs. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows :- The complainants deceased husband made an application to the 2nd opposite party for t...
M. Arputham Vs. the Union of India, Rep by Its Defence Secretary, Gove ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. A discharged soldier of the Indian Army, who after rendering 10 years and 30 days of regular service, and 2 years and 147 days in reserve service and after his retirement on his own volition, enrolled in DSC service and served for 3 years and 317 days, thereby putting in a total service of 14 years 7 months and 7 days, has come forward with this application before this Tribunal, challenging the impugned order of the respondents dated 15.01.2011, vide Ref No.Pen/Sep-3/2554088/SR for pension. 2. The facts as narrated in the affidavit to the application runs as follows:- The applicant had joined Indian Army as a Sepoy on 04.12.1962 and was discharged on 30.06.1987 on administrative grounds by the 4th respondent after the voluntary discharge from reservist pension service viz., from 05.10.1973 to 01.03.1976, under the Army Rule 13(3) Item III (v), after putting in a total length of service of 17 years and 40 days. In the impugned order...
J.S.Amarnath Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. The petitioner seeks a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order of fixation of pension, with consequential prayer for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus to re-fix the pay and allowances of the petitioner in accordance with, law Ministry of Finance(Department of Expenditure)) Memorandum in O.M.No.8(34)/E iii /57, dated 25.11.1958 and O.M.No.F.7(34)-E.III/62, dated 16.11.1964 and to release arrears etc. 2. In support of the prayer made, it is pleaded that the petitioner served the Indian Air Force for 16 1/2 years and thereafter, took Voluntary Retirement from Service on 27.03.1978. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk and subsequently promoted as Special Assistant, from where he retired in the year 2001. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Ministry of Finance in order to regulate the pay of Re-employed ex-servicemen issued a General Policy memorandum in the year 1958 vide Memo No.8(34) E III/67, dated 25.11.1958, protecting the pay last drawn by ex-se...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs. the Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing further investigation to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the sixth respondent, in Crime No.222 of 2002 on the file of the fifth respondent and later on transferred to the fourth respondent, who registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2004 and pass such further or other orders. The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to transfer, further investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the investigating officer was under the influence of the accused, therefore he is not conducting the proceedings and recording the statements of the witnesses correctly. 3. The petitioner, on an apprehension, that it will not get justice f...
M.Pandara Sundara Pandian and anr. Vs. the Additional Assistant Elemen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. The first petitioner,a Secondary Grade Teacher along with Management of the school have approached this Court with a prayer for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order, dated 19.10.2005 vide which the respondents have declined to grant fix Special Grade Teacher status to the first petitioner along with consequential benefits. 2. The first petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 27.12.1984. The petitioner on completion of 10 years of service was given Selection Grade on 27.12.1994. The case of the petitioner is that according to the service condition applicable to the Secondary Grade Teacher on completion of 20 years of service, a teacher is to be place in the Special Grade. It was on 30.6.2002 that the District Elementary Educational Officer, declared the petitioner as surplus staff due to decrease in the strength of the student in the school. The first petitioner was accordingly directed to appear before the District Elementary Educa...
R.Venkatachalam Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the order of suspension dated 29.06.2004 and quash the same and issue consequential directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of suspension, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. During pendency of the writ petition, the enquiry against the petitioner stands concluded, wherein the petitioner was held guilty and an order of dismissal was passed. 3. Paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent reads as under: It is submitted that the charges were framed against the petitioner on 28.02.2005. The petitioner has been given his written explanation on 10.03.2005. The domestic enquiry was ordered. In the domestic enquiry...
Kamalasanan and ors. Vs. the District Collector-cum-chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order passed by the District Collector- cum-Chairman,District Rural Development Agency, Vide Se.Mu.No.2646/2005/Aa4, dated Nil, 9.2004, but initialled on 19.9.2005, ordering the improvement of Killiyoor-Vellaiyambalam Bakthavatchalam road said to be passing through the petitioners land consisting 40 cents in Old S.No.2026(R.S.No.262/14), 40 cents in Old.S.No.2024 (R.S.No.262/15) and 57 cents in Old S.No.2023(R.S.No.262/16) of Killiyoor Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 2. In support of the prayer made, it is pleaded in the affidavit that the petitioner is the owner who was in possession and enjoyment of the land referred to above, having inherited it under a registered will, dated 9.1.1980, executed by their parents, the deceased sankara Pillai, nephew of Kumara Pillai and Janaki Pillai Thankachi, daughter of Nanka Easwari Pillai Thankachy. 3. Rajarethinam/respo...
Adishwar Spinners Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imports) Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees herein filed Bills of Entry for clearance of Greasy Raw Wool of 34.0 microns mean fibre diameter. Upon investigation, it was found that the import invoices were issued by M/s.Carlile Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Australia and that the importers also submitted test certificates issued by Australian Wool Testing Authority (AWTA) certifying the specifications of the mean fibre diameter of the wool as 34.0 microns. Importers claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.20/99-Cus. dt. 28.2.99 and exemption from SAD under Notification No.22/99-Cus. dt. 28.2.99. The consignment was seized on a reasonable belief of liability to confiscation; representative samples were drawn therefrom for testing the diameter of the fiber; the goods were released provisionally by accepting the bank guarantee of the differential duty amount; samples were tested by the Textile Laboratories, Textile Committee, Mumbai which reported on 18.6.99 that mean wool fib...
The Branch Manager State Bank of India Vs. P. Nithyasree and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay the claim benefits alongwith compensation of RS.50000/- alongwith 12% interest and 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.05.04.2010 in OP.No.618/2006. As the original complainant is deceased even at the time of final disposal in the District Forum, now a petition is filed to accept the cause title, impleading his Legal heir. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 30.6.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for appellant, perusing the documents, this commission passed the following order, on the question of maintainability. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The appellant/1st opposite party, suffered an adverse order, in the hands of the District Forum, in CC.No.618/2006, as per the order dt.5.4.2010, which is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »