Chennai Court August 2011 Judgments
K.Masanam Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
1.The writ petitioner on the basis that the third respondent panchayat has passed resolution on 12.09.2007 has claimed himself to be appointed as Over Head Water Tank Operator of the third respondent village panchayat and according to him, he worked in the said post till 14.02.2009, the date after which the third respondent President is stated to have been refused permission to the petitioner to work in the said capacity. It was, in those circumstances, he has filed the present writ petition to forbear the third respondent from terminating the petitioner from working as Over Head Water Tank Operator in the Sivanangulam Village, Piramanur Panchayat, Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Union, Sivagangai District. 2.The fourth respondent who has impleaded has stated that the third respondent has in fact appointed him only as per the resolution of the panchayat union dated 10.05.2001, and that fact has been confirmed by the third respondent again, in his letter, dated 10.06.2009. 3.It is the case of t...
Tag this Judgment!K.Durgadevi Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
1.The petitioner's father while in service as B.T.Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School, Odugathur Vilalge, Vellore District, died on 17.10.1977. His wife having predeceased him, the petitioner being the daughter of the deceased person was 6 years old and she was the only legal-heir of her father and she was under the care of guardian K.Rajarathinam, elder brother of her father. It is seen that the said guardian has made a representation even on 10.05.1979 for payment of GPF and DCRG apart from family pension. However, the amounts have not been paid. Ultimately, after 20 years, she has filed O.A.No.5335 of 1997 in the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and there was a direction issued by the Tribunal on 17.07.1997 for payment of family pension etc., It appears that a contempt application has been filed and thereafter, the amount of arrears of DCRG amounting to Rs.92,911/- was paid on 16.12.1999. She has made a representation for payment of interest for the belated payment...
Tag this Judgment!CaptaIn (Honorary) K.V. Devasia (Retd) Vs. Union of India, Rep by Its ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. This Application has been transferred from the Principal Bench under Section 27 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. 2. The applicant, who was discharged from service on 31.08.1992 under Army Act Section 13(3) I(i)(a), after getting the release of service pension and disability element of pension, is standing before us with this application with a claim that the disability element of pension granted by the respondents is not in accordance with the latest Government Orders. The applicant, after exhausting the statutory remedies available to him, has come forward with this application claiming disability element of pension at the rate of 75% from 01.01.1996 at par with the Commissioned Officers, since he was discharged in the rank of Honorary Captain. 3. The averments in the application sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:- The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 05.04.1961 in the Madras Regiment, as a soldier. He became a...
Tag this Judgment!Rayalseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1. Considering the fact that the assessee in all these Writ Appeals is one and the same and the assessment orders have been passed by the same respondent, coupled with the further fact that very same reasoning has been given while dismissing the Writ Petitions, a common order is passed. 2. The assessee, who is the appellant in all these Writ Appeals is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax as per Central Tax Act, 1956. The assessee is the manufacture in Concrete Sleepers and supplies the same to the Indian Railways, outside the State. 3. In pursuant to the inspection made by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 01.07.2010, proceedings have been initiated against the assessee for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2010-2011. Accordingly, pre-assessment notices were issued stating that the assessee is liable to pay tax at 12.5% for the sales of Concrete Sleepers made by it to the Southern Railways in other states instead of 4% paid already. Accordingly, it was asked to show...
Tag this Judgment!N.Arunachalam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents to remove the seal put on the Transit godown premises at Old No.6C, New No.23 (SF No.384) Warners Road, Contentment, Tiruchirappali. 2.The relief is claimed on the ground that the godown of the petitioner, though licensed, was sealed without passing any order, or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3.In the interim application moved by the petitioner was allowed by this court, on 03.12.2007, by passing the following order:- “Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.It is shown prima facie that before ever permission was granted to set up the transit gas cylinder stock godown, building plan was submitted for approval to the licensing authority and the licensing authority having been satisfied with the proposed safety structure accorded sanction on 15.07.1997. the licence granted to the petitioner in Form...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanavel and anr. Vs. Muruganandham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1.This petition has been filed by the petitioners to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 06.05.2011 passed in C.M.A.No.79 of 2010 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Tiruchirappalli reversing the fair and decretal order dated 20.08.2010 in I.A.No.319 of 2010 in O.S.No.436 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The nutshell of the case is as follows:- (i) The first and second respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.436 of 2010 against the revision petitioners/respondents 3 to 5/defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants claiming under them from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property and other relief. The said suit was resisted by the defendants after filing written statement. The plaintiffs have filed the suit along with an interlocutory application for a temporary injunction...
Tag this Judgment!C.Ram Prakash and anr. Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants, being the writ petitioners, challenging the order of the learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief: The respondent No.1 is the Central Transmission Utility under the Ministry of Power and is engaged in the construction and maintenance of inter-state transmission system spread across the nation. One such work has been entrusted with the respondent No.1 towards the construction of 400 KV Double Circuit Transmission Line from Madurai to Tuticorin under the approval of Government of India. 3. The respondent No.1 is a deemed transmission licensee in the capacity of Central Transmission Utility as envisaged under Sections 38 and 40 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the Government of India notification. The respondent No.1 becomes a deemed “transmission licensee” in accordance with Section 14 of “The Electricity Act, 2003”. Section 164 of “The Electricity Act, 200...
Tag this Judgment!S.Palani and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
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 Cetiorari, to quash the order dated 28.10.2008, passed by the Chief Engineer, TWAD Board blacklisting the petitioner along with other contractors. 2.The impugned order reads as under: “PROCEEDING OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TWAD BOARD EASTERN REGION, NO.39, EASWARI NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD, THANJAVUR 613 004 PRESENT: Er.B.Hariharasubramanian, ME,MBA,FIE Proc.No.48/F.Enlist (Blacklist)/JDO 2/2008/Dt.28.10.2008 Sub:Contracts - TWAD Board - Execution division, Kumbakonam - certain irregularities and malpractices committed by the contractors in the construction of over head tanks in Thanjavur, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam District during the year 1998-2001 - Black listing of - contractors - orders issued - reg. Ref:1.Secretary to Govt.(MA&WS)Secretariat, Chennai. Lr.No.2(D) No:58 Dt.23.04.2008, addressed to Managing Di...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.Muhammed Sheik Abdullah Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1.Before dwelling upon the issues involved in this appeal, the factual matrix involved requires a thorough narration. 2.The Honourable Apex Court in MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. MADHU SINGH AND OTHERS [(2002) 7 SCC 258], in order to regulate, avoid and prevent admission of students in the midstream of a medical course had issued certain directions. The directions as issued are apposite and they are extracted hereunder: “23. There is, however, a necessity for specifically providing the time schedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can take place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the scheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of the course. In conclusion (i) there is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education; (ii) even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions; (iii) there cann...
Tag this Judgment!S.Saramma Syed Vs. the Secretary and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2011
1.The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to allot the plot, in pursuant to application No.4806, dated 19.01.2006, in the Women Industrial Park, Kappalur, Madurai. 2.In pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No.2, an application dated 19.01.2006, was made by the petitioner, for allotment of plot for industrial purpose. In pursuance to the receipt of the application form, the respondent No.2 vide letter reference No.68/A2/07, dated 01.03.2008, asked for further information to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot. 3.The petitioner attended an interview, on being called by the respondent No.2, and furnished the requisite information. 4.The case of the petitioner is that after that, no steps had been taken by the respondent No.2 for allotment of plot. 5.The factual position is not disputed. The Writ petition is therefore, disposed of, by directing the responden...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »