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.Palanisamy Vs. the Special Commissioner of Social Welfare and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging the charge- memo issued against him by the second respondent/Director of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, Chepauk, Chennai-5, dated 10.07.1997, the order passed by the first respondent dated 26.04.2006 placing the petitioner under suspension as per Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules on the date of his retirement on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges framed against him and criminal cases are pending and the order of the first respondent dated 26.04.2006 by not allowing the petitioner to retire from service under fundamental Rule 56(1) (c) so as to enable the petitioner to face the charges respectively. 2.The petitioner, who was originally appointed as a Junior Assistant by direct recruitment on 06.01.1973 and promoted as Assistant and Superintendent on 11.03.1981 and 14.12.1989 respectively. His age of superannuation has fallen on 30.04.2006. As stated above by...
C.R.Sivanesan Vs. the Branch Manager and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to sanction the educational loan for the petitioner's son namely S.Harish pursuing second year B.Tech (I.T) Course at St.Michael College of Engineering and Technology, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District based on the petitioner's loan application within the stipulated time framed by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner, a practising Advocate of this Court, approached the first respondent Bank for Educational Loan for his son, S.Harish, who is undergoing B.Tech., (I.T) at St.Michael College of Engineering and Technology, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District. The Educational Loan is for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Thousand only) for three years. The petiti...
M.Nachiappan and anr. Vs. A.Nachiappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants to set aside the fair and decretal order passed on 04.12.2009 in I.A.No.447 of 2009 in O.S.No.177 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.177 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi against the revision petitioners / defendants for declaration and injunction stating that the 'A' Schedule property belongs to the 1st plaintiff and that his peaceful possession would not be disturbed. The 'B' schedule property belongs to the 2nd plaintiff. As such, the 2nd plaintiff seeks a declaration and injunction restraining the defendants. The 3rd plaintiff seeks injunction and declaration restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and other relief. The said suit has been resisted by the defendant and written statement has also been filed. 3.The plaintiffs hav...
K.N.Nagappan Vs. Meenakshi Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by late Lakhsmanan, seeking to recover a sum of Rs.50,000/- with consequential interest based upon a promissory note executed by the appellant under Ex.A.1. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties was pleased to dismiss the suit, which has been reversed by the lower appellate Court. Challenging the decree and judgment of the lower appellate Court, the appellant has come forward to file this Second Appeal. 2. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: A. Whether the lower appellate Court had not erred in rejecting the evidence of DW4 before coming to a conclusion that the pronote was not vitiated? B. Whether the lower appellate had not erred in rejecting the evidence of DW2 and DW1 on the ground that they had not stated about Manimurasu especially when they had specifically stated as regards the abduction and coercion?...
Mr.V.Chidambaram Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. The petitioner seeks a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 09.07.2005, declaring the petitioner to be ineligible for drill test, on the basis of the written test performance, with consequential relief to set aside promotion of the 3rd respondent, to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Armourer). 2.The pleaded case of the petitioner is, that he was appointed as 'Police Head Constable (Grade-II)' in the Armed Reserve Force, Madurai City, on 14.08.1975. On completion Armourer basis course, he was promoted as 'Head Constable-I (Armourer), on 27.04.1988 and Head Constable (Armourer) on 19.08.1994. 3.On completion of tenure of service as Head Constable, the petitioner was placed in Selection Grade, in the category of Head Constable with effect from 18.08.2004 and is working as such, since then. 4.The Armourer Wing of the Police, is a separate wing, of the Armed Reserve Force. The sanctioned strength of the Armourer Wing in Madurai City, is as under:- Sub Inspecto...
S.Nahomi Vs. the Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. The petitioner seeks a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order passed by the first respondent, directing the payment of 50% of the DCRG benefit in favour of respondent No.2. 2. It is not disputed that there is a dispute with regard to inheritance of Late.Shri.Sathyaseelan,is pending in the Civil Court. 3. The petitioner prays for release the retiral benefits to her being the nominee, whereas, the respondent No.2 is claiming the amount being the legal representative i.e., wife of Late. Shri.Sathyaseelan. 4. The suit with regard to the entitlement to recover the retiral benefits and status of respondent No.2 as wife is pending in the Civil Court. 5. The petitioner has an alternative remedy to seek requisite relief from the Civil Court in the pending suit or file a cross-suit. 6. The dispute raised in this Writ Petition admittedly is pending in the Civil suit therefore, this Writ Petition being not competent, is ordered to be dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to...
M. Manivasagam Vs. the Branch Manager and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 25.04.2008, vide which the medical claim of the petitioner under the Insurance Policy stands repudiated by the respondent company. 2. The petitioner was insured under the Scheme of Medical Claim Policy in the year 2001, and the policy was subsequently renewed regularly. The policy was in force from 01.12.2008 to 30.01.2009. 3. The policy taken out by the petitioner was to cover unexpected hospital expenses, sudden illness, injury, disease and other domiciliary hospitalization. 4. It is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner felt Chest pain on 03.08.2007, and accordingly, approached his family Doctor, who advised the petitioner to undergo a test of Coronary Angiogram. As per the result of the Angiogram, the petitioner was advised to undergo a bye-pass surgery. The petitioner was in the very serious state at that time. 5. The case of the pe...
Varuvel Yesuvadiyan Nadar Vs. Kandasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction and for damages for a sum of Rs.300/-. 2. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit property has been purchased by him by sale deed dated 18.12.1963 from one Nainar Thevar, Eswara Thevar and Madasamy Thevar under Exs.A3 and A4. Thereafter, out of the total extent of 9 Acre 82 Cents in S.No.454/1 of Nedungulam Village, an extent of 4 Acre 50 Cents was sold in favour of one Kumarasamy on 05.04.1966. According to the appellant, the remaining extent of 4 acre 50 cents was also sold to Kumarasamy orally on 05.04.1966. Thereafter, the plaintiff has got the entire extent of 9 Acres 82 cents by way of gift deed under Ex.A.1 dated 31.12.1980 from the sons of the purchaser by name Kumarasamy. Based upon the same, the petitioner has filed the suit. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary was pleased to dismiss the suit. Aggrieved against...
A.Vincent Vs. Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The petitioner moved an application, dated 23.03.1993 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.06.1993, due to his family circumstances. The application though not formally accepted, but, no order was passed by the competent authority within the statutory period. 2. The petitioner without waiting for the final order of voluntary retirement, absented himself from duty. 3. Accordingly, a charge-sheet for absence from duty and insubordination for having not reported for duty, inspite of directions was served on the petitioner. 4. The Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of the charges, in view of Rule 56(2) of Fundamental Rules. The competent authority while accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, instead of voluntarily retiring the petitioner, asked him to wait till the Vigilance Enquiry was completed, which was said to be pending. 5. No details of Vigilance Enquiry were disclosed either to the petitioner or to this Court. 6. The Reviewing authority after issuance of ...
Tmt. A. Prakasi Vs. the Accountant General and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
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 dated 21.06.2005, ordering recovery of the excess payment, made towards bonus increment. 2. The petitioner, while working as B.T. Assistant, was awarded one bonus increment in the year 1998. On attaining superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2005. After the petitioner retired from service, without issuing any show cause notice, the impugned order was passed, ordering recovery of bonus increments paid to the petitioner. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it has been stated, that the petitioner was entitled to bonus increment. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that once the stand of the first respondent is, that the petitioner is entitled to bonus increment, there was no question of recovery, and in any case, no recovery can be ordered, without following the principles of na...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »