Chennai Court July 2011 Judgments
N.Radhabai and ors. Vs. Maruthambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. This Appeal Suit and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal have been directed against the Judgment passed in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 and order passed in Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 by the First Additional District Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2. The respondents in Appeal Suit No.176 of 2010 as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.101 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for past damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants. 3. The respondent in CMA No.531 of 2011 as petitioner has filed Succession Original Petition No.8 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court praying to issue legal heir certificate in her favour, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent. 4. The nubble of the plaint filed in Original Suit No.101 of 2005 can be stated like thus: The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons of first plaintiff. The first defendant is the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Stella Mary Vs. the Director of Teacher Education Research and Trainin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 14.11.2005, vide which the request made by the petitioner for approving the admission of respondent No.3 stands declined. 2. The petitioner,Teacher Training Institute which was allowed to fill up 21 seats for the academic year 2005-2006. In violation of the order of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner admitted 23 students. 3. The stand of the petitioner is that this was done to cover up a seat likely to fall vacant, on the non-joining of selected students. 4. The case of the petitioner further is that the student shown at S.No.15 of the list did not join the course, as also some more persons did not join the course. The respondent No.3 was admitted to the course against available seat. 5. The stand of the petitioner before this Court is that inadvertently in the list sent for approval, the name of the third respondent was not mentioned, thereafter a request was made by the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!M.Thirukumar Vs. the Director and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Office of Director of Public Health on compassionate ground on 17.10.1997. As per the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, he has to undergo the foundational training at Bhavanisagar and till he completes the said course, he is deemed to be in probation. Rule 32a(i) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, reads as follows; Every person appointed to a category by direct recruitment shall be on probation for a total period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. 2.Within the continuous period of three years, he must have completed the period of two years for declaration of probation. It is true that within the said period, he must have completed the foundational course, which is a condition precedent for consideration to the next post of promotional avenues. Admittedly, it was only after the fourth year, he has completed the foundational course successfully. The case of the petitioner is that ...
Tag this Judgment!N.Muthulakshmi Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 2.The writ petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Public Health Department during 1981 and thereafter, transferred to Registration Department during 1992 and she was promoted as Assistant on 30.12.1996. A charge memo was issued against her under Rule 17(b) on 15.10.2004 to the effect that while working as Assistant in the District Registration Office, Karivalamvandanallur, Tenkasi she has failed to produce key relating to the office on 11.05.2001 stated to have been with her and instead of she has handed over the key to Kuppamuthu, Office Assistant with the result, the Registration office could not be opened upto 1.45 p.m. on that day and thereby prevented the public office from functioning. 3.Based on the said charge memo, it appears that the petitioner has given her explanation on 28.12.2004 that during the relevant period namely 11.05.2001, she has applied for ...
Tag this Judgment!John Traders and ors. Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order passed by the Chit Fund Arbitrator and that of the appellate authority,dismissing the appeal. 2. The admitted facts are that one Thiru. Gnanavel joined as subscriber of Palai Matha Chit Fund as subscriber No.19, for a value of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only). Thiru.Gnanavel was required to pay at the rate of Rs.15,000/-p.m.(Rupees fifteen thousand only) for a period of 20 months. He participated in the auction held on 01.08.1997. Being successful bidder was paid the price money of Rs.2,10,000/- Rupees two lakhs and ten thousand only) on 30.08.1997. The price money was paid to petitioner. It executed a promissory note through Thiru.Gnanavel along with one surety, namely, Thiru.Sundarsingh, for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-(Rupees two lakhs and twenty five thousand only) to secure the future instalments i.e., 7th to 20th instalments. The petitioner failed to pay the instalments. Conse...
Tag this Judgment!The District Collector and ors. Vs. Saraswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The defendants are the appellants herein. Challenging the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.27 of 1999, on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, as confirmed in A.S.No.66 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, the appellants have filed the present Second Appeal. 2. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: (1) Whether the Courts below erred in allowing the plaint in the absence of proof for negligence on the part of the respondent side Doctors who conducted the family planning operation? (2) Whether the Courts below erred in passing the award of compensation up to an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest as just and reasonable? 3. The suit was filed by the respondent herein, claiming damages for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the negligence committed by a Medical Officer in performing the family planning operation, the failure of which has resulted in the respondent's begetting two girl children....
Tag this Judgment!C.Muthuraman Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The prayer made in this Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.I to proceed with the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of the amount as ordered by the learned Labour Court. 2. It is not disputed that respondent No.I has no jurisdiction to recover the awarded amount due to the bifurcation of the District, and the proceedings are to be taken up by the District Collector, Sivagangai District. 3. Nothing has been placed on record to show as to whether the petitioner has filed any application under Section 33(c)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act with the District Collector, Sivagangai District, or any application has been moved to the District Collector, Madurai to transfer the application to the District Collector, Sivagangai District. 4. In absence of approaching the competent authority with appropriate application, no Writ of Mandamus can be issued by this Court...
Tag this Judgment!S.Selvaraj Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to follow the Circular Letter No.5907/T2/NH/2005-2006, dated 23.05.2005 of the third respondent in constructing the bus shelter as per Resolution No.88, dated 31.01.2005. 2. The allegation of the Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition are that the respondents are taking steps to construct the bus shelter in violation of the circular issued by the National Highways Authority. 3. On notice, an affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Engineer(National Highways), Madurai Section, as under: 4. It is submitted that I enquired with the Executive Officer,Town Panchayat, Thirupuvanam over phone regarding th Bus Shelter for which the Executive Officer assured by saying that he will demolish the constructions at the time, when National Highways Authority intends to extend the width of the road(i.e., widening of N.H road in future) without any objection. Further, he...
Tag this Judgment!A.Rasappan Vs. the Special Deputy Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The petitioner seeks a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to initiate departmental proceedings against the 2nd respondent on account of a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner, against the 2nd respondent. 2.In support of the petition, it is pleaded that on 16.03.1998, due to previous enmity, the 2nd respondent along-with his associates, attacked the petitioner and his brother with wooden locks and in the attack, the petitioner and his associates sustained injuries. 3.The petitioner had approached the police for registration of the case, but the FIR was not registered. This forced the petitioner to file a criminal complaint, in the criminal court. 4.On the basis of preliminary evidence led before the criminal court, a case under section 147 and 323 IPC, stands registered against respondent No.2, which is pending adjudication. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as criminal case stands registered against the respondent No.2, the 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!V.Raj Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, for appointment as constable. 2.The petitioner was selected for appointment of constable, however on verification, it was found that he was involved in a criminal case, accordingly, the respondent rejected the candidature of the petitioner. 3.The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner was acquitted of the charge, in the criminal court, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 4.In support this submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in P.Virabhagu vs. Union of India, 2005(1)CTC 429. 5.The learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the petitioner cannot claim right to appointment, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court, in Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »