Chennai Court August 2011 Judgments
G.Arul Vs. the Director of School Educational and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
1. While the Writ Petition in W.P.No.12607 of 2009 relates to the academic year 2008-09, W.P.No.13831 of 2009 relates to the academic year 2009-10, the petitioner claims himself to be the Correspondent of the school, which is an aided minority school. It appears that in respect of fixation of staff strength for the said school, apart from one post of Headmaster, 7 posts of P.G. Assistants, 3 posts of B.T. Assistants and 8 Secondary Grade Teachers, 2 Tamil Pandits, one Drawing Teachers, one Physical Education Teacher and one Sewing Teacher are sanctioned strength. 2. In these writ petitions, we are concerned about the three sanctioned posts of BT assistants and 8 Secondary Grade Teachers posts in the said school. Now, B.T. Assistants and Secondary Grade Teachers are called as B.T.Assistants. Therefore, there are 11 sanctioned B.T. Assistants. The impugned order, which is challenged in these two writ petitions, is related to the surrender of one B.T. Assistant as surplus in the school fo...
Tag this Judgment!Periyasamy Vs. Arumugam Alias Addaikkalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
1.This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the District Munsif at Manapparai, Tiruchirappali District to dispose of the O.S.No.87 of 2004 within a period that may be stipulated by this court. 2.The short facts of the case is as follows:- (i) The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.87 of 2004 against the respondents/defendants on the file of District Munsif at Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District for declaration that the plaintiff is the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property and consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and all persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and other reliefs. (ii) After filing the suit, the summons were duly served on the respondents/defendants. The matter is being adjourned from time to time. Hence, the revision petitioner has filed the above revision to dispose of the suit in O.S.No....
Tag this Judgment!Shifa Housing (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sankaranarayanan Swami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
1.The defendants in the suit are the appellants as well as the revision petitioners herein. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Civil Revision petitions are filed against the order of injunction granted by the trial Court against the defendants / appellant / revision petitioners not to alienate their properties, till the disposal of the suit, ordering impleadment of the Temple as a party to the suit and amending the particulars in respect of Court fee in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 09.04.2010, which contemplates that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is liable to pay only Rs.100/- as a Court fee, respectively. 2.The case of the respondent / Trust herein, who has filed the suit for declaration is that the property to the extent of nearly 15.35 acres of land belongs to a Trust stated to have been created in the year 1975 and the Trust has been in possession of the property and subsequently, when they came to know that the defendants have attempted to put u...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, M/S.Master Investment and Marketing (P) Ltd., a ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 09.08.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant filed complaint against the opposite parties claiming direction for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss caused, medical expenses, injury, damages etc., with costs for the deficiency of service. 3. Complainant purchased one water purifier on 10.5.02 for Rs.5,740/- from one Sai Enterprises which was subsequently taken over by the 1st opposite party and from the date of purchase the water purifier was not functioning in spite of the opposite party arranged for their technician repairing and the defects were not rectified fully and asked the complainant to wait for replacement of spares as there was no ready stock with them and thereby...
Tag this Judgment!S.Gunasekaran Vs. State Bank of India, Credit Card Division, Rep.by It ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 16.08.2011, no representation for both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed complaint against the opposite party claiming for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and another Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and pain, caused due to the deficiency of service by the opposite party and for costs. 3. The complainant availed the credit card facility from the opposite party and he had issued a cheque for Rs.6,616/- drawn on Bharath Overseas Bank on 31.7.06 for the payment towards the credit card facility. But the cheque was returned as bounced since the cheque was presented for payment of Rs.66,161/- even though the complainants credit card limit was only for Rs.15,000/- against each. The cheque was fraudulen...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Karandhai Tamil Sangam Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax-ii and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
1.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the petitioner Society/Trust on the file of the first respondent, to quash the impugned order dated 11.08.2010 served to the petitioner on 07.07.2011 issued in Notification No.4/2010-11 read with C.No.7089/CIT/II/TRY/2010-11 in transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Thanjavur to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur for framing assessments for the Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2009-10 by the second respondent and consequently direct the first respondent to maintain the jurisdiction with the third respondent. 2. Heard Mr.T.Balachandar, learned Counsel representing Mr.S.Sridhar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sathiyamoorthy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The writ petit...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Beta Wind Farms Private Limited Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order No.A3/2409/2010 dated 14.07.2011 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to erect and commission the wind mill at a distance of 3.5 kms from the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant at Koodankulam, at Vijayapathi and at Irukkanthurai Village in Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2. Heard Shri N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Advocate for Mr.A.Thirumurthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent District Collector dated 14.07.2011 made in No.A3/2409/2010. 5. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the establishment of Wind F...
Tag this Judgment!S.Kannambal Vs. the Director of College Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
1. The writ petitioner is stated to have been employed in the Census scheme from 1981 to 1982 on consolidated pay. However, ultimately by the proceedings of the fourth respondent, the District Collector, dated 12.03.2010, she was appointed as Office Assistant in the third respondent College which is a Government College and joined in the said capacity on 22.04.2010. According to her, her correct date of birth is 24.02.1953. However, in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, it is mentioned as 03.05.1951. Therefore, at the time of joining, she has specifically informed that her correct date of birth is 24.02.1953 and produced a certificate issued by the Madurai Corporation. It is seen that she has also filed a suit simultaneously in the Madurai Town Munsif Court, in O.S.No.890 of 2010 for a declaration that her date of birth is 24.02.1953 and for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents to register her date of birth in the service register. It appears that an exparte decree w...
Tag this Judgment!Rm.Venkatachalam Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
1.The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated 23.06.2007, vide which, the salary of the petitioner has been re-fixed retrospectively and recovery of excess payment ordered. 2.The petitioner joined the service as 'Sub-Staff' in the Indian Bank on 20.07.1972, and promoted as 'Clerk' in the year 1983. While, working as 'Clerk/Shroff' in Royapettah Branch, Chennai, he was placed under suspension, and charge memo for misconduct was issued, on 28th May 1990, and imposed a punishment of warning. 3.The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner accepted the charges and regretted his misbehavior, and prayed for mercy, and agreed that the period spent on suspension be treated as suspension period. 4.It was, on the undertaking of the respondents that the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was issued minor punishment of warning, by treating the period of suspension as suspension period, but the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Punniamoorthy Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
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 passed by the respondent No.1, dismissing the petitioner from service, on the ground of proved misconduct. 2.During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died, and his wife Tmt.Neelavathy is brought on recored, as the legal representative. 3.Late Sri.Punniamoorthy had joined as Armed Reserve Constable in the year 1994 at Avadi, and was later transferred to the 1st Battalion at Trichirappalli, in the year 1996 and then to City police. 4.The petitioner was deputed to escort duty, to take a notorious criminal, named, Thiru.Sebastian @ Udahasuriyan, as remand prisoner from Trichy to Aluva Town in Kerala State. 5.The accused was produced before the learned Magistrate and thereafter, was to be taken to another court for extension of his remand. 6.The accused escaped on the away, and thereafter arrested. 7.The petitioner was, charge sheeted on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »