Chennai Court July 2011 Judgments
A.Raja Kumari Vs. the Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to grant educational loan to the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner who is studying B.D.S Degree at Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital in Thalambur, has made an application to the respondent - Central Bank of India for grant of Educational Loan in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only). Since the same was not considered properly, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr.Pandivel, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the application submitted by the petitioner is incomplete. Furthermore, at the time when the matter is taken up by this Court, as per the circular issued by the Lead Bank namely Indian Overseas Bank, the petitioner's loan application will have to be considered by the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!P.Veeovu Reddy Vs. the Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
1. The order shall be disposed of W.P.(MD)Nos.1684 and 1685 of 2006, as the common question of law and facts are involved. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.(MD)No.1684 of 2006. 2.The petitioner, in both the writ petitions, seeks writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the condition No.17 of the impugned work orders, dated 14.02.2006. 3.The petitioner, is a registered contractor with Sattur Panchayat Union, for executing the contract, floated by the Department of Panchayat Union. 4.In pursuance to the tender notice, dated 25.01.2006, the petitioner submitted his tender to lay the metal road. The tender of the petitioner was accepted. 5.The cost of the work was estimated at Rs.4,85,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Eighty Five thousand only] and the petitioner, accordingly, deposited a sum of Rs.12,125/- [Rupees Twelve thousand One hundred and Twenty five only] as Earnest Money. Whereas the cost of work was estimated at Rs.3,50,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Salem Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Devel ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.07.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order, of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for direction to pay the compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony and pain, Rs.45,910/- along with interest as repayment for the expenses spent for availing the loan and Rs.500/- for the legal notice and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.3. The complainant applied for housing loan of Rs.4,50,000/- in the opposite parties Cooperative Bank and they sanctioned only Rs.3,90,000/- and even after 20 months after sanction, they have not released the loan amount for construction and thereby he had already paid Rs.35,910/- to the opposite parties for getting the loan and spent another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards o...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D Parry (India) Ltd., (Sugar) Rep. by the General Manager South Di ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
(The 1st Respondent/ complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.300000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.300000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said order, these appeals are preferred by the opposite parties 1 and 3 and 4 separately in F.A.No.249/2009, and F.A.No.305/2010 praying to set aside the orders of the District Forum dt.16.7.2007 in O.P.Nos.8/2007. These appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.7.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, upon perusing the written arguments, documents, and lower court records, this commission made the following order:) COMMON ORDER M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 and 4 are the appellants, in FA.No.249/2009 and 305/2010, respectively. 2. The parties are referred in this order, as arrayed in Cc.No.8/2007. 3. The complainant, an agriculturist ...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Engineer (O and M) Tneb and Others Vs. M.M.K. Raja
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
The Respondent as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to effect electricity service connection, alongwith compensation of Rs.2,38,00/- 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.19.09.2008 in CC.No.6/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 12.7.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant/ respondent, who is doing cement business at various places in Salem city, had applied service connection for one such business, at 9/40 Parasakthi Nagar, Trichy Main Road, for which, as directed by the opposite parties, the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkatrami Reddy Vs. Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary, Ministry ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. An young defence personnel, who has been boarded out on medical grounds under Rule 13(3)IV of Army Rule 1959 has come forward with this application with a prayer for reinstatement or in the alternative for disability pension. 2. The short facts in the affidavit to the application sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The applicant joined in the Indian Army on 16.02.2004. Due to some ailment he was admitted in Command Hospital, Air Force, Bangalore, on 17.10.2004 and thereafter he was given sick leave for four weeks with effect from 02.11.2004. After the expiry of the sick leave, the applicant was placed under low medical category. Since the applicant is a sportsman, he was called upon to participate in sports activities. Once again, the applicant was admitted in Command Hospital, Air Force, Bangalore on 01.04.2005 for treatment, where he was declared to have been suffering from Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis and he was dischar...
Tag this Judgment!Rayagiri Special Village Panchayat Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The petitioner seeks a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of the District Collector, Tirunelveli District dated 28.02.2005, directing the petitioner to hand over five tanks to the Ullar Thalavaipuram village panchayat. 2. Rayagiri Town Panchayat was bifurcated into two panchayats viz., Rayagiri Town Panchayat and Ullar Thalavaipuram Village Panchayat. This bifurcation was carried out by the District Collector in exercise of power under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The Panchayat union was delegated the powers to maintain the tanks under Section 133 of the Panchayat Act. 3. The District Collector passed the impugned order, directing Rayagiri Special Panchayat, to hand over five tanks to the Ullar Thalavaipuram village panchayat, merely for the reason that the five tanks fall within the area of Ullar Thalavaipuram village panchayat. 4. It is not in dispute, that the lessees of the fishing right, have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction,...
Tag this Judgment!D.Kaliyamoorthi Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.4083/2010/Aa3 dated 17.05.2011 and the first respondent Notification in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 18.05.2011 Part VI Section 2 Notification No.VI(2)/281(b)/2011 and quash the same and quash the same. 2. Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent - the Inspector of Panchayats, removing him from the post of President of the Panchayat in exercise of the power under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. 4. In view of the First Bench Decision of this Court in the District Collector -cum- Inspector of Panchayat - vs. - S.Senthamizh Selvi (DB) reported in 2009(1) CTC 356 and the direction issued in para 6, the petitioner is at liberty to e...
Tag this Judgment!Rayagiri Sri South Mari Amman Kovil Vs. the District Collector and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. The petitioner Rayagiri Sri South Mari Amman Kovil, represented by its trustee Subbiah Nadar, seeks a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 24.06.2005, passed by the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, vide which the District Collector passed an order, directing that the persons having fishery right in the tanks should be allowed fishing till the lease period is over. 2. It is not in dispute, that the lessees of the fishing right, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the defendant as well as the respective panchayat union from interfering in their right of fishing. 3. The suit was dismissed, so also the Appeal. Against the Judgment and decree, S.A.(MD)No.90 of 2005 is pending in this Court, and Interim Injunction was ordered in C.M.P.(MD)No.856 of 2005 in S.A.(MD)No.90 of 2005. 4. Once the matter is pending in the Civil Court, where all the rights and claim can be adjudicated between the parties, the parallel proceedings under...
Tag this Judgment!The District Collector Vs. N.Mohanraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.07.2010 passed in W.P.(MD)No.8460 of 2010, by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 30.06.2010, by which, the writ petitioner was permitted to retire on the attainment of age of superannuation without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings, which are contemplated. The learned Single Judge has held that unless and until by invoking the powers under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules the Government passes orders retaining the services of the Government servants even after attaining the age of superannuation for the purpose of facing disciplinary proceedings, the authority has no power to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in P.Muthusamy v. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited reported in 2006(4) MLJ 504, wherein a Division Bench of thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »