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.
Rank â Ex Sepoy, Name â Y.G.C. Pullaiah Vs. Union of India T ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. Ex-Sepoy of the Indian Army, after his discharge from service re-employed in DSC and later being discharged on medical grounds and has been denied his due disability pension without a valid, substantial reason, has come forward with this application for disability pension. 2. The short facts as narrated by the applicant in his affidavit to the application sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The applicant was enrolled as a sepoy on 23rd January 1976 in the Indian Army and he was discharged from service on 31st January 1998 with an unblemished record of service bearing exemplary character. At the time of his discharge from regular Army service, he was having medical SHAPE-1, and he was also given Pension Payment Order No.S/041632/97 (Army), dated 11th September 1997. After discharge from Army service, he was reemployed in DSC/3rd respondent herein on 6th May 1999 and while discharging his duties in DSC service, he had develo...
Tamil Nadu Arasu Nedunchalaithurai Vs. the Secretary to Government and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash G.O.Ms.No.193 Highways & Minor Ports (HK3) Department dated 01.08.2008, with regard to laying down the qualification of 10th Standard for Gang Mazdoors to be appointed as Road Inspectors Grade II. Consequential relief is also prayed for, to direct the respondents herein, to fix the qualification as pass in 9th Standard for the recruiting Gang Mazdoors as Road Inspectors Grade II under G.O.Ms.No.856 Public Works Department dated 01.06.1977. 2. The prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition, on the face of it, is not maintainable. 3. The right of the Government to frame Rules is absolute, which cannot be regulated by the Court proceedings, unless it is shown that the exercise of power is arbitrary or it is contrary to the Statutory regulation or the Statute. 4. It is not poss...
S.Akbar Ali Vs. the Director of School Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 7.8.2005 ordering dismissal of the petitioner, on the ground of misconduct. 2. The petitioner had joined as B.T.Assistant(History) in Hajee B.Syed Mohammed Higher Secondary School, Virudhunagar on 06.11.1978 and works there till 19.07.1979. Thereafter, he was appointed in the Ilayankudi Higher Secondary School on 04.06.1987 as Tamil Pandit. The petitioenr is possessing the qualification of M.A(Tamil). The petitioner thereafter acquired the qualification of M.Phil in the year 1977. 3. The petitioner was awarded Selection Grade on 07.08.1989, which entitle him to special grade on 07.08.1999. 4. The petitioner therefore being aggrieved by the promotion of one Kamal Batcha, said to be junior to him, filed a Writ Petition No.34806 of 2002 which is pending in this Court. 5. The wife of the petitioner is also challenged the promotion of one A.E.John Mohammed by ignoring her. 6. This Court ...
M.GladwIn Chellakumar Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 31st May, 2005, passed on the representation filed by the petitioner. 2. The admitted case leading to the filing of the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed as casual labourer with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 1st January, 1969. On 21st August, 1974, the petitioner was ordered to be absorbed as Helper on regular basis. Thereafter, a list of persons absorbed as Helper was circulated, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.1 and one P.Chinnappan was shown at No.60. 3. The petitioner was thereafter, transferred to Trichy, where he was assigned the job of Cleaner. This assignment was in terms of letter of appointment as Helper as it was classified that the persons appointed as helper could be deputed to any post. The petitioner is performing the duty as a Cleaner being a Helper. 4. The pay scale of the Cleaner and Helper is identical. A circular was ...
K. S. P. Subbiah Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the dearness allowance to the employees of the third respondent Board, on a revised basis corresponding to the Government employees, without any delay. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, as the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board / third respondent was previously a wing of the State Government, the employees working with the third respondent are entitled to the pay scale and emoluments, which are sanctioned to the State Government employees from time to time. This is covered under Section 48 of the Khadi Board Regulation Act. 3. Before approaching this Court with a prayer of issuance of Writ of Mandamus, the petitioner, has filed a detailed representation dated 10.09.2007 before the third respondent, and till date, no decision has been taken thereon. 4. In ...
Hindu Nadargal Shenbagakkutti Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 08.04.2008, passed by the District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar / first respondent herein. 2. This is a classic case, which shows that the Government Agencies, working under different heads, are not aware of the decisions taken by the authorities, under different Acts. It also shows that decisions are taken by quasi judicial authorities, in ignorance of the orders passed under the different Statutes. 3. In the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has pleaded, that the petitioner is a Registered Society. The Society, being aggrieved by an earlier order passed by the District Collector, had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7816 of 2005, vide which entries with respect to S.No.319 and S.No.328/3 was ordered to be changed. S.No.319 was said to be Nandavanam while S.No.328/3 was recorded as Teppakulam attached to the Sri Shenbaga V...
S.Murugesan Vs. N. Manoharan, Proprietor
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 23.06.2011 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant herein. 2. This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.No.133/2008 dated 7.11.2008 dismissing the complaint claiming refund of Rs.35,868/- the excess payment made to the opposite party by the complainant and compensation of Rs.50,000/-and costs of Rs.5,000/- alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. The case of the complainant is that he is running a Gymnasium and Fitness Center and he placed an order for supply of Gym equipments with the opposite party and accordingly the opposite party supplied the goods to the value of Rs.3,54,132/- and the complainant has paid Rs.3,90,000/- in total and thus Rs.35,868/- has been paid in excess and t...
Pachai Perumal Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and the fifth respondent, Dr.K.Krishnasamy, who has appeared party-in-person. 2. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in M.P.No.3 of 2011, impleading the fifth respondent as a party in the writ petition. It is seen that as against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District, preventing the appellant/writ petitioner from drawing water from his well by exercising the power under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has filed the writ petition. Pending writ petition, he has obtained an order of stay. The fifth respondent has filed applications to implead himself as a respondent to the writ petition and also to vacate the order of interim stay, contending that he being the elected representative of the ...
S. Selvamani Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
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 impugned order dated 09.02.2007, passed by the first respondent, vide which the request of the petitioner for approval of his appointment has been declined in view of G.O.Ms.No.525 Education Department dated 29.12.1997, and consequently, for a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 02.06.1981 with all the consequential benefits. 2. In the Affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded, that he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher, by the Aided Primary School, Kallupalam, Idaicode Post, Kanyakumari District / fourth respondent. The school is aided primary school and having Standards I to V, with teaching in Tamil and Malayalam medium. 3. It is the case of the petitioner, that he has not been paid salary from the date of his appointment, in spite of a directio...
S.Sundarapandian Vs. the Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Though the petitioner has obtained an order of status quo on 29.04.2011, in the present writ petition filed after the expiry of contract period i.e., 12.03.2011, Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not ready to make submission on the writ petition. Nevertheless, considering the averments and the nature of the order passed by this Court, this Court is inclined to consider the merits of the case, with reference to the impugned order which clearly states that the Raising Agent agreement for Keelavalavu (297/5) D portion ends on 12.03.2011. 2.Pleading and the material on record show that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order granting lease in favour of the Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, represented by its Chairman, Chennai, enabling the first respondent company, owned by the State for conducting quarrying operation and also for marketing granites available in the survey site. According to the petitioner, the respondent is only a marketing agency...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »