Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
Tamil Nadu Panchayat Assistants Vs. the Director of Rural.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
PRAYER: This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 6888 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Clause (c) of Para 2 of G.O.Ms.No.230, Rural Development (E5) Dept., dated 15.10.1996 with consequential relief for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents regularise the service of the members of the petitioner association in the post of Panchayat Assistant and Panchayat part time Clerk.O R D E R1. The petitioner Association being aggrieved by the framing of rules with regard to appointment and dismissal of the Panchayat Assistants, have approached this Court to quash the impugned portion of the G.O.Ms.No.230, Rural Development (E5) Dept. dt.15.10.1996.2 The impugned part of Govt. order only authorises the President of the elected body to be appointing and punishing authority of the Panchayat Assistants.3 The ground of challenge to the order, is that on cha...
Tag this Judgment!R.Ganesan Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J)1. This Writ Appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.(MD)No. 10075 of 2007 dated 28.9.2010 wherein this Court rejected the Writ Petition as misconceived and bereft of reasons. The order under challenge before the learned single Judge relates to an order of dismissal from service in a departmental enquiry on the ground that the appellant had abstained from attending the office continuously without giving any reason.2. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Appeal are as follows:- (i) The appellant herein joined as Office Assistant in the year 1977 in the respondent Municipality. He was subsequently promoted as a sanitary work supervisor and the nature of his work is to allot work to several sanitary workers and to maintain muster roll. Evidently, without even applying for leave from his higher officials, the appellant herein did not report to duty from 28.1.2004 to 4.3.2004. The San...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kasi Vishalakshi Hallow Blocks. Vs. the Executive Engineer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
PRAYER: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to mention the petitioner's name viz., Sri Kasi Vishalakshi Hallow Blcoks in the bills, whenever the petitioner purchase the sand from the respondents 4 and 5 Government sand quarry consequently, permit the petitioner to use the JCB for loading and unloading sand in the vehicles viz., lorry, bullock carts and Tractor in the petitioner's stockyard situated in S.F.No.89/2 (Part) extent of 0.22.5 Hectare in 36 cents in Vavvivedu village, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District (Main) and S.No.23/1B to the extent of 99 cents, Sanampattarai road, Gudimallurvillage, Anaicut road via, Walaja Taluk, Vellore district and S.F.No.161/6-A and S.F.No.161/6-B, Gudimallur Village, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District (branch).O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, dir...
Tag this Judgment!B.Millar Vs. the Secretary to Govt.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2010 and to grant relief under the rehabilitation package scheme to the petitioner.O R D E R1. Petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 02.12.2010, and grant relief under the rehabilitation package scheme to the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Vaikkadu village residing there since his date of birth. The case of the petitioner is that, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property along with his father since his childhood. The father of the petitioner had constructed a kattukoppu house, in the said property.3. The case of the petitioner is that the land was acquired by respondents 2 to 4 for the benefit of Chennai petroleum corporation limited.4. In the...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.P.Ramakrishnan Vs. Tmt.Rani Rambai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur,to consider the petitioner's warrant recall application and application of extension of suspension of sentence for two weeks of the petitioner sympathetically on very same day in the event of their surrender before the concern court in C.C.No.221 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,Court at Thiruvottiyur. .O R D E R1. The petitioner is a convict in C.C.No.221 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur in Thiruvallur District. The said case was instituted on a private complaint filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On completing the trial, the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 19.10.2011, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Impris...
Tag this Judgment!R.Balsami Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in XVII/98/13 dated 9.3.2000 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to place the petitioner over and above the respondents 2 to 5 by revising the seniority and grant him all consequential relief.O R D E R1. Petitioner has challenged the seniority of respondents 3 to 5, by claiming to be senior to the private respondents, having been appointed by way of direct recruitment, on 15.05.1987.2. The petitioner was recruited as Divisional Fire Officer in accordance with Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, and duty on 15.05.1984, at State Training School, Madras. The petitioner successfully completed his probation on 14.05.1989.3. The Post of Divisional Fire Officer in category -II, in class 2 of the Tamilnadu Fire Service is filled up by more than one method of recruitment, namely by direct recruitment and recruitmen...
Tag this Judgment!V.Thirunavukarasu Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of lecturer with effect from his initial date of appointment as Contract Lecturer in the Department with all monetary and other consequential service benefits.O R D E R1. The petitioner is working as a Lecturer in the Government College of Engineering coming under the control of the second respondent Director of Technical Education. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to regularise his service in the post of Lecturer from the date of his initial appointment as contract Lecturer in the department with all monetary benefits.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as Lecturer on 22.08.1989 and subsequently promoted as Senior Lecturer. However, the petitioner was on contract basis. Hence, the petitioner and 70 other teachers moved the Government for necessary r...
Tag this Judgment!S.Jayamani Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents 1 to 3 which has culminated in the order of the 4th respondent dated 5.9.2002 made in Proceedings No.,/kp/bgh/ , g n$ gh/vz;337 and the consequential order dated 27.9.2002 of the fifth respondent served on the petitioners herein and quash the same.O R D E R1. The writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents 1 to 3 which has culminated in the order of the 4th respondent dated 5.9.2002 made in Proceedings No.,/kp/bgh/ , g n$ gh/vz;337 and the consequential order dated 27.9.2002 of the fifth respondent served on the petitioners herein and quash the same.2. The petitioners are members of the Society and they are engaged in agricultural operations by lifting water from wells adjacent to the river Cauveri basin by using electrical energy. For lifting water from the well adjacent to the Cau...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaraju Padaiyatchi Vs. Sundararajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2000 passed in A.S.No.47 of 1884 on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.1983 passed in O.S.No.1255 of 1982 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Virudhachalam.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellants/Defendants have filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2000 in A.S.No.47 of 1984 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.1983 in O.S.No.1255 of 1982 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Virudhachalam.2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.47 of 1984, dated 11.02.2000, has inter alia observed that 'the plea that suit Promissory Note has been created in a forgery manner, is not accepted and in fact, the suit Promissory Note is supported by co...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Roja Kalludaikum Magalir. Vs. State of Tamilnadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to dispose of the above second appeal filed by the petitioner, under Section 36 (6) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, dated 23.8.2011, according to law.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The petitioner has prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of the second appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner, on 23.8.2011, under Section 36(6) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, within a specified period.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for this Court passing such an order.4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal, filed by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »