Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

K. Pushparaj and Others Vs. Chennai Port Trust, Rep.by Its Chairman

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(5)LLN756

(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent on 26.11.2007 in Reference No.A3/132/2006/CHD, quash the same and direct the respondent to absorb the petitioner as a permanent employee in the Clearing and Forwarding Department or in any Department of Chennai Port Trust with effect from the date on which proportionate vacancies were filled up by the Madras Dock Labour Board in any one of its Schemes as agreed before this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.62 of 1992 or in the alternative to pay due and proper compensation to the petitioner at such sum not less than Rs.1,20,000/- plus interest thereon at such rate on which such compensation was paid to similarly placed employees till date of payment of the same.) COMMON ORDER: This is a second round of litigation by the petitioners. The petitioners earlier filed W.P.Nos.36273 to 36284 of ...

theivanai Vs. Shamugha Udaiyuar (Died) and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: SecondAppeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore made in A.S.No.64 of 1997 dated 09.04.2001 in reversing the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam made in O.S.No.148 of 1991 dated 11.08.1997.) 1. The second plaintiff is the appellant. After the death of the first plaintiff, Samidurai Udaiyar, the second plaintiff has been impleaded as per the order passed in C.M.P.No.327 of 1992 dated 4.11.1992. 1.1. The defendants are the respondents. After the death of the first defendant, defendants 3, 4 and 5 have been impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased first defendant Shanmuga Udaiyar. The second defendant Pichaipillai Udaiyar died issueless. (Rajavelu Udaiyar S/o. Thangavelu Udaiyar and Narayanasamy, S/o. Manicka Udaiyar have been shown as defendants 1 and 2 as per the amended cause title as per theorder of court dated 13.3.2002made in C.M.P.No.2759 of 2002) 2. The ...

V. Ramamurthy Vs. Director of School Education and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 24.3.2010 made in W.P.No.16827 of 2006 on the file of this Court.) R. BANUMATHI, J. Challenge in this intra-Court appeal is the order dated 24.3.2010 made in W.P.No.16827 of 2006 setting aside the order of dismissal (dated 5.10.1995) passed against the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 3.8.1988 and remitting the matter back to the 3rd respondent - District Educational Officer, Nagapattinam to consider as per G.O.Ms.No.153, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.III) Department, dated 8.8.2000. 2. The matter had a chequered history of two decades. The appellant was appointed as a Library Record Clerk and working as Library Record Clerk in Government Higher Secondary School, Thiruthuraipoondi. On 7.11.1983, he found that some books in the library were scattered here and there and he intimated the Headmaster about the facts that out of 26,000 books, 1739 books were missing. On 1.6.1985, the Chi...

M/S. E. Elangovan Vs. M/S. G. Manoharan

Court: Chennai

Vinod K. Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff / applicant has filed this original application, under order XIV Rule 8 r/w Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of interim injunction, restraining the defendant or any person acting on his behalf from in any manner alienating four shops bearing Shop Nos.T/B63, T/E65, T/B78 and T/E78, Koyambedu Wholesale Anna Fruit Market Koyambedu, Chennai, till disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff / applicant is a wholesale food trader in the Koyambedu Anna Wholesale Fruit Market and the defendant is one of the customers. The plaintiff / applicant in normal course of business sold and delivered fruits to the defendant against cheques with a credit of one month. 3. It is the submission of the plaintiff / applicant that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) is due from the defendant. The cheques, which were isued in favour of the plaintiff / applicant bounced on presentation. It is the case of the applicant / plaintiff, that...

A. Senthil Kumar and Others Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ125

(W.P.No.26513 of 2010 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of proceedings of G.O.Ms.No.27, Finance (BPE) Department, dated 24.1.2007 clause (ix) and (x) and G.O.Ms.No.239, Agriculture (A.V.) Department, dated 14.10.2010 and quash the same insofar as it is against the petitioners and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 6 to prepare the seniority list of Junior Assistants and Assistants from 2000 to 2010. W.P.No.12727 of 2012 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.239, Agriculture (OS) Department, dated 14.10.2010 issued with the concurrence of the respondents and the proceedings bearing No.A1/42008/2008, dated 22.10.2010, No.A1/42008/2008-I, dated 21.01.2011 and No.A1/42008/2008-II, dated 21.01.2011 passed by the 4th respondent and consequen...

R. Varalakshmi Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by Its Chairman and A ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition in W.P.No.2621 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his letter No. J.J.A6/946/2009 dated 20.1.2012, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to issue allotment order and execute the sale deed for a HIG flat in JJ Nagar Division, Mogappair West Planning Area under self financing scheme in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the draw of lots held on 16.9.2011. ) J.J.NagarDivision of Tamil Nadu Housing Board published an advertisement in the Indian Express, an English daily, on 28.08.2011 calling for applications from general public for the proposed construction of 104 HIG flats at Ambattur (Near Dunlop), 64 HIG flats at Ayapakkam, Ambattur Phase II and 20 (HIG & LIG) Flats at Mogappair West under Self Finance Scheme. In total, the advertisement was relating to 188 flats under J.J.Nagar Division of Tamil Nadu...

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep by Superintending Engineer, North, C ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)494

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code as against the judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S.No.78 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree, dated 27.09.2001 made in O.S.No.1558 of 2000 by the III Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore.) 1. The High Tension Consumer i.e., the plaintiff, contending that he has suffered High Tension, because of the extra demand made for a sum of Rs.13,99,454/-, having succeeded in the District Munsif Court as well as in the first appellate court claims that again he is put under High Tension because of the second appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 2. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and its officers / Engineers in various cadres functioning under Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, who are defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants herein. 3. Prior to the filing of the suit in O.S.No.1558 of 2000, which is being continued by the filing of the second appeal, a sui...

T.J. Manjuladevi Vs. the Govt. of India Rep. by Its Secretary Ministry ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondents order made in Na.Ka.No.1509/E6/2004 dated 18.08.2006 and quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to conduct the fresh enquiry in consultation with the second and third respondents also, in accordance with law, based on the documents submitted to the second respondent by the petitioner in her representation dated 28.07.2006, within the stipulated period of time.) This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records of the fourth respondents in Na.Ka.No.1509/E6/2004 dated 18.08.2006 and quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry in consultation with the second and third respondents also, in accordance with law, based on the documents submitted to the second respondent by the petitioner in her representation dated 28.07.2006, within a stipulated period of ...

Sekar Vs. Subramaniyam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ20; 2013(1)MWN(Civil)1

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order, dated 28.03.2011, passed in I.A.No.132 of 2011, in O.S.No.484 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Attur.) The defendant is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money, on the basis of the promissory note, dated 02.07.2001, alleged to have been executed by the revision petitioner/defendant. The revision petitioner/defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and receipt of consideration in the written statement. P.W.1 was examined and the revision petitioner/defendant also filed a proof affidavit. At that point of time, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application order Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., to amend the pleadings to the effect that in the cause of action para, due to typographical error, the place of execution of the promissory note was mentioned as 'Pallipalayam', instead of 'Ar...

R.N. Sankaran Vs. State Bank of India, Rep by Its Chief Manager and An ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent from effecting any recovery from the pension payable to the petitioner in the S.B. Account No.10311745539 maintained in the second respondent bank and further direct the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from June, 2011 onwards to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. ) 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to forbear the respondents from effecting any recovery from the pension payable to the petitioner in the savings bank account maintained in the second respondent bank and to direct the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from June, 2011 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. When the writ petition came up on 18.04.2012, this court ordered notice of motion and had granted an interim injunction for a limited period....