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.
C. Sundaradhas Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent, to initiate action for demolition of construction put up in Re Survey No.214/32 by the fifth and sixth respondents, in view of rejection of Planning permission by the second respondent vide his proceedings dated 28.12.2005. 2. The petitioner is the President of Hindu Dharma Vidya Peedam, Kanchi Nagar, Kappicadu Post, Kunnathoor Village, Kanyakumari District. 3. The case of the petitioner, is that in the year 1983, there was a communal clash between the two religious groups, leading to loss of life and materials. In order to find out the reasons for the communal riots, a Judicial Commission was constituted, which was headed by Mr. Justice Venugopal. 4. In pursuance to the recommendations made by the Judicial Commission, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.916 dated 29.04.1986. 5. The Government Order is only an administrative instruction, having no force of law, nor there was an...
The Management Vs. the Appellate Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the Appellate Authority, in exercise of power under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947. 2. The second respondent herein was employed as Salesman in a fair price shop on 08.01.2000, on temporary basis in pursuance to the Resolution passed by the petitioner. After the second respondent had put in more than four years of service, he was terminated. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the second respondent was against permanent vacancy. 3. The case of the petitioner, is that as the appointment of the second respondent was not made in terms of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, therefore, the services were terminated, after issuance of a show cause notice. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of termination, the second respondent filed an Appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. 5. An objection was ta...
R.Palanikumar Vs. the Director of Employment and Training
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to call the petitioner for interview for certificate verification and consider the petitioner's case for appointment to the post of Junior Training Officer(Machinist), in the next vacancy, and pass such further orders. 2. The Petitioner completed ITI-Machinist(Grinder) in the year 1985 and got himself registered with the District Employment Exchange in the year 1985. The petitioner also completed the Apprenticeship with M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai during the period 30.10.1985 and 30.10.1986 and thereafter, worked as Machinist with M/s.Vinayaka Engineering Works, Theni during the period 15.01.1995 to 15.07.1999. 3. The name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Junior Training Officer-Machinist(Grinder). In pursuance to the interview letter, the petitioner appeared before the Committee on 11.12.2000 for certifica...
Susiathul Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. The petitioners were appointed, temporarily as 'Vocational Instructors', in the Vocational Training Center, for physically and mentally challenged under the special project. 2.The appointments of the petitioners were for a period of three years, but before the expiry of three years, the petitioners, were relieved from service. 3.The petitioners, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.1, in relieving them from service, these writ petitions were filed, praying for issuance of writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the orders of relieving from the job. 4.The writ petitions prima facie are not competent, as admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis, and breach of contract, gives raise to claim for damages, which can be claimed by ordinary civil remedy. 5.The petitioners cannot claim specific enforcement of contractual contract of service. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the time of argument, did not-press, his challenge the order,...
M.Nagarajan and anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. The petitioners pray for issuance of writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation to pay pension to the petitioner along with arrears etc. 2.The petitioner served in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation for a period of 20 years, and thereafter, sought voluntary retirement. The pension scheme was introduced by the respondent on 01.09.1998. The petitioners claimed that they fell within the pension scheme and were entitled to pension even on, Voluntary Retirement, under the scheme. 3.The writ petitions are highly belated, however, keeping in view of the fact that the pension is recurring cause of action, the writ petitions cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as arrears benefits can be restricted to 3 years and two months, prior to filing of the writ petitions. 4.The action of the respondent, in not granting pension, is challenged on the ground that the respondent cannot discriminate between the employees, who...
X.M.Ladislaus Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature certiorari, for quashing the order, dated 03.09.2001 passed by the Director of School Education, Chennai, as also the order passed by the first respondent, dated 21.10.2005, with a consequential prayer, for directing the respondents to pay all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner. 2.The case of the petitioner as set up, in the affidavit is, that his wife was selected for appointment to the post of 'High School Assistant' in the Infant Jesus High School, Mulagumoodu. She joined the service on 1st June 1966. The wife of the petitioner went on leave, but thereafter absented herself from duty. She was terminated from service on 5.03.1981. 3.The case of the petitioner that the services of his wife were terminated for absence without leave, without any other allegation. It was, therefore, necessary for the respondents to serve charge memo and hold enquiry for the alleged misconduct, bu...
N. Subbaiah Vs. Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary (Defence) and Oth ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
(Order of the Tribunal was made by Justice ACA Adityan) The learned JAG Officer has filed an affidavit along with the compliance report vide Additional Directorate General of Personnel Services, Adjutant Generals Branch, Integrated HQ of MOD (Army), DHQ P.O., New Delhi, letter No.A/79100/1775/Q/ST12/234/AG/PS-4(Legal), dated 1st August 2011, as to the effect that the order of this Tribunal in T.A.No.91 of 2009, dated 8th October 2010, has been complied with in entirety. Under such circumstances, nothing survives in this Miscellaneous Application. Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is recorded. M.A.No.60 of 2011 in T.A.No.91 of 2009 is closed as infructuous....
N.T.Suyambu Prakasam and ors. Vs. K.Gangadharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners/appellants/defendants to expedite the disposal of the I.A.No.246 of 2010 in A.S.No.76 of 2010 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.202 of 1997 against the revision petitioners/defendants to grant a preliminary decree for redemption of the plaint schedule property on deposit of Rs.35,000/- being the mortgage money paid by the plaintiff into the court as directed by the court, directing the defendants to bring into the court all documents relating to the plaint schedule property, to be delivered up to the plaintiff and for recovery of the plaint schedule property from the defendants, and further mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10,800/- p.a and other relief. 3.The said suit had been resisted by the defendants. After adjudication, the suit was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the said d...
S.M.Balasubramanian Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari to challenge the order passed by the third respondent, dated 11.02.2006, cancelling the deed of allotment in favour of the petitioner. 2. The Petitioner was a contract labourer with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board drawing Rs.350/- per month. The petitioner applied to Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai, for assignment of patta in S.No.129/1 at Madurai North Taluk, Arumbanur Revenue Village, where the petitioner along with his family members were living in a thatched roof. The petitioner being a landless labourer was granted the patta for the land measuring 38 fts north, 39 fts south, 33 fts west and 34 fts east in S.No.E6/12671/9, seven other persons were also issued patta along with the petitioner. 3. The service of the petitioner were regularised as Field Helper with effect from 04.03.1998 vide order, dated 04.03.1998. 4. In pursuance of the allotment of patta, the petitioner raised constructions on the plot allotted to ...
Arulmigu Madasamy Thirukoil Deity Vs. M.Ramachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur to expedite the E.A.No.36 of 2011 in E.P.No.118 of 2009 in O.S.No.611 of 1994 and dispose of the same with the time frame fixed by this court. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No611 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur against the defendants to deliver the suit property. The same was decreed. Against the said decree and judgment, the defendants have filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.90 of 1999 on the file of Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar. The same was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the 1st appeal, the defendants have filed a second appeal in S.A.No.974 of 2000, before this Hon'ble Court. The second appeal also was dismissed and the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.611 of 1994 was confirmed. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed E.P.No.118 of 2009 for exec...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »