Chennai Court August 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.
S. Ramachander Vs. the Union of India, Represented by Chief of Army an ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
(ACA Adityan) 1. Challenging the order of the 3rd respondent in Summary Court Martial dated 08.03.2008, an order of dismissal from service, confirmed by the appellate authority/2nd Respondent on 08.11.2008, the applicant/appellant had approached the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing W.P.No.13621 of 2010, which has subsequently been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, and re-numbered as T.A.No.1 of 2011. 2. Before the Summary Court Martial the applicant/appellant was charged under Section 39(b) of the Army Act for having absented himself after availing leave of 64 days in 2005 ie, from 31.01.2005 to 04.04.2005 and also 15 days Advance Annual Leave in the year 2006 ie., from 05.04.2005 to 19.04.2005, but he failed to rejoin duty on 20.04.2005, but had voluntarily surrendered before the competent authority only on 11.11.2005 at 5.30 hours. The total days of absence come to 205 days under the first charge. 2(a) The sec...
S.Subramanian Vs. Director of Drug Control and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and decide the application moved by the petitioner, for renewal of license for manufacture and sale of Siddha Drugs Gomathy Moola Lekiaum. 2.It is not in dispute that the prayer made by the petitioner for renewal of license is no longer available to him, as he has shifted from original license place to 4/94, North Street, Mela Thiruvenkatanthapuram, Tirunelveli-6. 3.According to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, on shifting of the premises, the manufacturer is required to get a new license. The petitioner, accordingly, applied for grant of new license with permission to shift the premises to the new place of manufacturing. 4.Though, under the statutory provisions of law, the respondents were required to decide the application within three months, but till date, no action has been taken on the applicat...
C. Chandrasekaran Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Departmental Proceedings instituted Vide Charge Memo PR.No.15 of 2005. 2. The petitioner was recruited, as Grade II Police Constable, in the District Armed Reserve, Thanjavur on 23.12.1985, and thereafter, transferred to Law & Order in 1990. The petitioner was upgraded, as Grade I Police Constable, in the year 1995, and promoted as Head Constable in the year 1999. The petitioner received 16 rewards with no adverse remarks in his service career. The petitioner is also the recipient of Chief Minister's Medal for meritorious performances for the year 2002. 3. It is the submission of the petitioner, that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case registered Vide Crime No.5 of 2004, by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Thanjavur, for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 4. The case was registered on the complaint by Thiru.K.Balu, S/o. Kaliyaper...
D. Ravisankar and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the acquisition proceedings relating to G.O.Ms.No.50 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.V) Department dated 20.04.2005, as well as the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the award dated 17.04.2007. 2. The case pleaded by the petitioner, is that his grand father along with his sons conveyed an area measuring 4750 sq. yards in 1957, to the fourth respondent for municipal bus stand. The fourth respondent / Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality thereafter demanded more area, on request, another 444 sq. yards was conveyed in the year 1959. 3. The municipal Committee, in violation of conveyance in their favour, encroached larger area, than the one assigned, for which the petitioner had taken steps to get eviction order. 4. It is the case of the petitioner, that in view of the action taken against the fourth respondent, the proceedings were initiated to acquire the la...
G.Vasanthi Vs. the Executive Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for allotment of MIG House, No.14, Stage II, TNHB Quarters, V.M.Chatram,Tirunelveli-11 on 15.12.1997. The application filed by the petitioner was allowed and he was allotted MIG House No.14, Stage II, by order dated 05.01.1998. The petitioner paid initially Rs.89,600/-(Rupees Eighty nine thousand and six hundred only), at the time of allotment and balance along with interest at the rate of 16.5% in equal monthly instalments at Rs.2,950/- (Rupees Two thousand Nine hundred and fifty only) per month. The case of the petitioner is that on receipt of full and final payment, the respondent was under duty bound to issue the conveyance deed, in favour of the petitioner, but, it has not been issued,even after lapse of two and a half years. 3. It is the case of the petitioner, that the only reason for non- issuance of sale de...
K.Srinivasan Vs. Veerapathiran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the defendant to set aside the order in I.A.No.501 of 2010 in O.S.No.281 of 2004, dated 07.12.2010, passed by learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2.The Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.281 of 2004 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai against the revision petitioner/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,14,666/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of plaint till date for realisation, on promissory note and other relief. The said money suit was resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant after filing a written statement. Thereafter, interlocutory application in I.A.No.701 of 2005 was filed for sending the document Ex.A1 for expert opinion. This was allowed and an expert opinion was also received. But, the expert was not examined. Hence, the revision petitioner/defendant has filed an interlocutory application for examining the exper...
Syed Ibrahim Sha Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order, dated 21.03.2005, passed by the second respondent(wrongly mentioned as third respondent). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Typist in Fair Copy Section in the Office of the Collector, Virudhunagar District on 28.11.1995 through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant w.e.f.29.12.2001. At the time of entry into service, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 26.05.1963, whereas, the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 29.09.1964. 3. The basis for claim, is that the marriage of the petitioner's parents solemnized only on 08.05.1963, therefore the presumption is to be drawn that the date of birth of petitioner cannot be 28.11.1995. 4. The case of the petitioner is that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the School Register, at the time of his admission. The case of the petitioner, further is that on 20.05.1...
Peer Mohamed Vs. the Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation in crime No.146 of 2011 from the file of the 2nd respondent police to any other competent independent investigating agency for fair investigation and to file a final report. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the wife of the petitioner has committed suicide and a case has been registered for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in crime No.146 of 2011. He would further submit that at the time of post mortem, a letter was found, which was written by the deceased in her handwriting, wherein, it has been stated that she had written separate letters to the petitioner's son, daughter and to the petitioner and the respondent police recovered those letters from the house of the petitioner. He would further submit that in the letter written to the petitioner, it has been stated that the owner of the house viz., Gnanalysi @ Leela @ Abipatti has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,03,000/- from the deceased, prom...
A.Vairamuthu Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order of fresh appointment, dated 30.01.2006. 2.The petitioner was appointed as Conductor with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation w.e.f.01.06.1986. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.05.1991,the suspension order was thereafter revoked on 24.06.1991. 3. The petitioner was served with a charge-memo alleging misconduct. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of serious misconduct. 4. The Management accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and terminated the petitioner from service on 11.11.1992. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the order of termination, before the learned Labour Court, Madurai. 5. The learned Labour Court found that the enquiry held was in violation of principles of natural justice held was that the charges were not proved, as the shortage of amount was due to unintended mistake. 6. The lea...
Tvl. Boot Captive Power Service(P)ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. The petitioner seeks a Writ in the nature of declaration declaring the notification No.No.II(1)CTRE/100/97 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.528, CT & RE, dated 21.11.1997, as amended by Notification No.II(i)/CTRE/43(a-3)/98, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.104, CT&RE, dated 01.04.1998 as illegal and ultra vires of Section 4-E of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. In the course of business, the petitioner effects the sales of the Engine Spares to Retail Dealers, manufacturers of other goods for being used in their machineries to the consumers, Exporters and Export Oriented Units. The sales effected to Retail Dealers and consumers are liable to be taxed at the rate specified in the schedule -I to the TNGST Act. The petitioner has been collecting the sales tax and remitting it to the second respondent. 3. Section 4-E of the TNGST Act, 1959, reads as under: A registered 100% export oriented unit or unit located in the Madras Export Processing Zone ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »