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.Mala Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to relax the minimum age limit, prescribed for admission to M.B.B.S course for the academic year 2007-2008. 2.It is not in dispute, that the petitioner was not eligible for admission, as per the provisions, in the Prospectus, as she was under age by 27 days. 3.This Court on 17th July 2007, passed the following orders:- Interim Direction as prayed for the petitioner is granted, directing the 3rd respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the rank list and allowed her to attend the counseling for admission to M.B.B.S. Course for 2007- 2008 pending disposal of the above writ petition. 4.In pursuance to the interim order passed by this court, the petitioner attended the counseling. However, she was not admitted to the course, being ineligible for admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position t...
The Managing Director Shriram Chits T.N. (P) Ltd., and Another Vs. E. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2011
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3191/- and Rs.705/- alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/-. 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.04.02.2010 in OP.No.38/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 26.07.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels for the both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Facts leading to this appeal: The complainant/ respondent had subscribed a chit, in Group No.23002, having the ticket No.25, and value of the chit being Rs.25000. The complainant had paid the monthly subscription, periodically, and that is why she was allowed to ...
M. Kasa Mohammed and anr. Vs. the Chairman / Disciplinary Authority an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. This order shall dispose of W.P.Nos.8253 of 2005 and 6271 of 2006, as common question of law and facts are involved. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.8253 of 2005. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.8253 of 2005 prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner, for the alleged misconduct while working as Manager. 4. Whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.6271 of 2006, the Cashier, who was also charged on the similar charges along with the Manager, seeks for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment, and to direct the respondents, to pay the salary of the petitioner in the scale, as it was prior to the impugned order. 5. The admitted facts of the case, are that one Noorjahan Beevi of Iruveli Village approached the bank, for loan against pledge of jewels. The jewels were assessed at a value of Rs.11,500/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand and Five Hundred only). As per...
Mangapuram Housing Plots Owners and ors. Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. W.P(MD)No.13613 of 2010 has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to Na.Ka.No.Vu/749/2008 dated 20.01.2010 published in Daily Thanthi dated 03.02.2010 relating to the lands in Survey No.445/1A, 446/2D, 446/2E, situated at Vazhavandhankottai, Trichy Taluk, Trichy District and quash the same insofar as Serial No.1 is concerned as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents alternatively to compensate us by way of providing alternative land in Survey No.289/1 or any other similar nature of land in Vazhavandhankottai, Trichy Taluk, Trichy District and further direct the respondent to follow the Act 1 of 1894 in fixing and providing all statutory benefits as per the existing market value as per Act 1 of 1894. 2. W.P(MD)No.13614 of 2010 has been filed to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring Section 3-A, 3-D, 3-G, 3-J of National Highways Act, 1956 as amended by Act 16 of 1976 as ultra vires and unconstitutional and consequently, dir...
S.Dhandapani Vs. the Secretary and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to give reply and furnish the information to the petitioner as requested in the petitioner's representation dated 10.04.2011 and consequent Telegram. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned Central Government Standing Counsel who takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 4. The petitioner made the representation dated 10.04.2011 addressed to the first respondent. 5. Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the authority will consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.04.2011 on merits. 6. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.04.2011 on its own merits and in accordanc...
Tebma Shipyards Limited Vs. Board of Trustees of TuticorIn Port Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the 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 the order dated 22.05.2007, with a consequential prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to refund Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Fourty Five Lakhs only), as also writ in the nature of Prohibition, restraining the respondent from invoking the Bank Guarantee No.2004/6 valid upto 27.09.2008. 2. The prayer for Writ of Prohibition has been rendered infructuous, as the respondent was not successful in invoking the Bank Guarantee during the period of its validity, as no further action against the Bank was taken in refusing to honour the Bank Guarantee. 3. The admitted facts of the case, are that a Tender was issued by the respondent for acquiring 2 Nos. 10 MT. Bollard Pull (BP) Tugs on 05.01.2006. On 11.03.2006, the petitioner submitted an Offer for construction of Tugs at a price of Rs.10,...
S.Krishnapillai and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, who have lost before the Courts below. 2. Claiming title to an extent of 18 Acres in Survey No.583/1 as absolutely belonging to the appellants/plaintiffs, a suit in O.S.No.98 of 1989, on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, was filed by them seeking a relief of declaration and permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with their rights regarding the possession or the disposal and transport of timber cut and removed from the suit schedule property. 3. The case of the appellants, as seen from the averments made in the plaint, is that an extent of 18 Acres of land forms part of 95 Acres of lands was purchased by the appellants/plaintiffs in Survey No.583/1, which consists of an extent of 483.50 Acres. Alleging that the respondents/defendants are claiming the said extent of land as Government Forest Department land and trying to interfere with the rights of the appellants/plai...
Mohan Vs. Natchiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order in I.A.No.1293 of 2007 in O.S.No.179 of 2007 dated 22.07.2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri. 2.The Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiff/1st respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.179 of 2007 against the defendant/petitioner herein and another against their men and gents not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment and other relief. The said suit was set ex-parte on 16.08.2007. Hence, the petitioners/defendants have filed the set aside application along with condone delay of 25 days. The same was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by way of counter statement. After hearing the arguments of the counsels for the defendant and the plaintiff and on perusing the plea of the both the parties, the petition was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the revision petitioner/1st defendant has filed the above revision petition to set aside the order passed in...
A.Dhanasekaran Vs. the Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. The challenge, in this writ petition, is to the demand notice issued by the respondent No.1, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the property tax. 2.It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of assessment, which is pending with the respondent No.2. 3.In view of the pendency of the appeal, this court, on 18th September 2006, passed the following orders:- Mrs.V.Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice. 2.Petitioner is the owner of the building, which is the subject matter of the assessment notice dated 7.6.2005. In the said notice, it is stated that a revision can be filed to the Executive Authority. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Schedule IV Part I of Taxation and Finance Rules framed under the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 where-under Rule 15 of the said Rules has been omitted by Section 6 of the Tamilnadu Act LXV of 1997. In view of Section 89 of the Tamilnadu District Mu...
Madurai District Mini Bus Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the right of the members of the petitioner Association to park the petitioners' mini buses shown in the list annexed to this writ petition in front of the open yard of the Madurai Integrated Mattuthavani Bus Stand, Madurai. 2. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Govt. Pleader for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.M.Ravishankar for the second respondent. In view of the order that is to be passed, notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 4. The first respondent - The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai District, has filed the status report and paragraph 11 of it, reads as follows: "11. It is humbly submitted that on an oral representation made by the Mini Bus operators the situation was enlightened to the Region...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »