Chennai Court March 2012 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.
Anand LenIn Vethanayagam Vs. the Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
ORDER1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order of termination of his services as a Reader in the Department of Mass Communication.2. Heard Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned senior counsel for the respondent.3. By an order dated 21.7.2010, the petitioner was appointed as a Reader in the Department of Mass Communication, School of Media and Communication, on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee of the University. In accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the order of appointment, he was placed on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment. The petitioner joined duty on 03.8.2010. Therefore, his initial period of probation was to expire on 02.8.2011.4. When the petitioner was rendering services as a Probationer, a complaint was received by the University that he had plagiarised from a book titled Mass Communication in India authored by one ...
Radhika Charles Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
PrayerThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus calling for the impugned vehicle inspection record in No.2995634 issued by the first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to return the petitioner's certificate of registration dated 2.1.2009 of TATA Safari vehicle bearing No.PY 01 AT 8312.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 28.1.2012, directing the petitioner to pay the Motor Vehicles Tax, due to be paid to the Tamil Nadu Government. In the meanwhile, the first respondent had seized the original Registration Certificate of the petitioner.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that the petitioner is residing at Pu...
K.Rangaraju Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.6761 of 2011 : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (Salary section) Department dated 26.2.2011 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent to grant the salary benefits and emoluments as granted under G.O.Ms.No.450, Finance (Salary section) Department dated 31.12.2010.COMMON ORDER1. It is stated that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is covered by a common order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petitions in W.P.No.7006 of 20111 and connected matters in R.Thiagarajan Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Principal Secretary to Government (Finance Department), Fort St.George, Chennai 9 and others dated 8.3.2012.2. Identical contentions raised in the present Writ Petitions were also raised in the above batch of Writ Petitions and this Court while repelling the contentions, has observed as follows:16....
N. Sriram Vs. S. Murali Rajan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.7,32,075/- with 18% interest from the date of filing of complaint till realization, to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental sufferings of the complainant. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dated 3.9.2009 in C.C.No.288/2005. The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.3.2012, upon hearing the arguments of appellant side 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. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction for payment of Rs.7,32,075/- with 18% interest towards payment for t...
Devarajan Vs. N.Appuswamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 7.5.2008 made in WC.No.184/2006 by the learned Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai-6.JUDGEMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Employer/Proprietor of M/s.Jeyam Stone Works against the order dated 7.5.2008 made in WC.No.184/2006 by the learned Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai-6, questioning the correctness and legality of the order and award, wherein the claim application filed by the claimant/Respondent herein was allowed in part and a compensation of Rs.91,376/- with interest at 12 per cent has been awarded.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Deputy Commissioner for Labour. The facts leading to filing of this Appeal are as under:-The claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation for permanent disability suffered on account of the accident that had occur...
Dr.M.Arumugam Vs. the Registrar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
ORDER1. Not only HOROSCOPE is cast on the basis of date of birth, entry of a person into service and exit from the service is also determined based on that. Therefore, the date of birth is a vital information. Here is a case where, the petitioner declared his date of birth as 13.4.1952 which is also reflected in school records as well as other academic records and joined the service on the basis of those documents and suddenly woke up and tried to correct his date of birth as 12.4.1953. This case is only a tip of iceberg where some of the government servants are trying to stick to their seats by altering the date of birth in one way or other thereby preventing the juniors getting promoted and the new generation getting employment. The administration should not be stagnated with the old employees by altering their date of births.2. The petitioner is a Postgraduate Degree holder in "Agronomy" from the Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and doctorate in the same subje...
John Williams Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari and to call for the records and quash the impugned order of the respondent issued under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bearing PAN No.AAAPW6059K dated 01.12.2011 by the second respondent and pass further orders.ORDER1. This Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner challenging the Assessment order passed by the second respondent, under Section 143(3), read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that an appeal had been preferred by the petitioner, against the said order, before the first respondent. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitioner, the learned counsel had further submitted that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, which is about 1/3 of the amount said to be payable by the petitioner, as arrears of tax and interest. On such paymen...
Sunil Kumar Reddy Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned Demand Notice, dated 20.02.2012, had been issued by the third respondent, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned Demand Notice, dated 20.02.2012, had been issued, based on the enquiry made by the third respondent. However, he had admitted that a prior notice had not been issued to the petitioner and that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner, to put forth his case.4.In such circumstances, the impugned Demand Notice, dated 20.02.2012, is set aside. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the third respondent to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner, under Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Ve...
A.Vallikumar Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
ORDER[Order of the Court was madeby CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J]1. W.P.(MD)No.1607 of 2011 is filed by one A.Vallikumar challenging the eviction proceedings, dated 18.01.2011, issued by the 3rd respondent, namely the District Collector, Tuticorin District. The petitioner herein is stated to be the power agent of the legal heirs of the founders of Saiva Prakasa Vidya Salai, Udangudi. Based on the power granted, the petitioner started fencing the property, which is, admittedly, under the control of the Government of Tamil Nadu, by virtue of the registered Gift Deed executed by 'Saiva Prakasa Vidyasalai Paripalana Sangham', as early as in 1968. The petitioner states that the founders of Saiva Prakasa Vidya Salai were not parties to the earlier round of litigation which came on appeal upto this Court. The petitioner contends that the founders of Saiva Prakasa Vidya Salai had absolute right and title in Saiva Prakasa Vidya Salai property and therefore the alleged gift deed said to have been exec...
V.Vivekananthan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of 2nd respondent letter Nos.70823/PC/11/91-4 dated 19.12.1991 and 16279/PC/93-1 dated 09.03.1993 and the order passed by the 6th respondent Na.Ka.No.11667/08/A1 dated 28.01.2009 and the objection of 5th respondent vide R.DIS No.42/2009/A1 dated 27.02.2009, quash the same as illegal and direct the 6th respondent to reimburse Rs.3,10,169.00 illegally recovered from the pension benefits of the petitionerORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings whereby excess of salary paid to the petitioner sought to be recovered on the ground that the selection Grade awarded to the petitioner was not proper.2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined the municipal service as Field Assistant on 01.12.1972. He was promoted as Health Assistant and thereafter, promoted as Sanitary Inspector during the year ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »