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.
The Director Vs. K.Chellaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J.)1. The Director, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and the Director General of Police, Chennai, are on appeal, against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14.06.2011, wherein the writ petitioner / respondent herein, sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the notification of the first appellant herein in Advertisement No.210 dated 10.05.2010 and quash the same with regard to 5% of the vacancies mentioned in the said notification and direct the appellants herein to appoint the writ petitioner as Police Constable Grade-II based on the written test conducted on 08.08.2010.2.Referring to the similar request made in W.P.Nos.150, 151 and 359 of 2011 dated 11.04.2011, learned single Judge directed the first appellant herein to follow 5% reservation for Ex-Servicemen in Group-C posts and consider the claim of the respondent herein for selection and appointment ...
P.Rajan Vs. the Secretary.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in relating to the publications of result for Group - I Services in the main Written examination for the year 1998 - 1999 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to adopt the universally accepted method of scaling down / moderation in the same main written examination and publish the fresh result.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the result of the written examination held in the year 1998 1999, and consequently direct the respondent to adopt universally accepted method of scaling down / moderation, in the main written examination, thereby publish fresh result, thus, render justice.2. The petitioner participated in the main written examination in the year December 1999, of Group-I Services for...
K.V.Shobana Vs. the Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.2.2012.ORDER1. Mr.M.L.Mahendran, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 14.2.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 14.2.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a ...
V.Jaganathan Vs. the Principal Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
PRAYER: This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 7049 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order, dated 18.02.2001 with consequent relief for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the panel so as to fix the name of the petitioner as No.5 in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildar for the year 2000.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 18.02.2001 vide which 38 Assistants were included in the approved list of Deputy Tahsildar, Salem District for the year 2000.2 For the reason best known to the petitioner, none of the persons selected are impleaded as parties to the writ petition. In the absence of necessary parties, the writ as framed is not competent, as in absence of party no adverse order can be passed.3 The only prayer i...
T.V.Velayutham Vs. the Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka. No. 23824/92/L.3 dt. 24.12.1997 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner, while working as Executive Officer Grade III, was served with charge memo on 04.02.1970. The petitioner was also placed under suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner in order to defend himself, requested the respondent to furnish copies of 15 documents, on which reliance was placed by the prosecution to prove misconduct against petitioner.2. The request of petitioner was not accepted, and without supplying with necessary documents, enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him.3. The competent authority accepted the report of enquiry officer and issued order of dismissal on 18.09.1982. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal by filing writ p...
T.Tamilarasi Vs. State Rep. by Sub-inspector of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to change the Investigation in Cr.No.154/2011 pending on the file of the first respondent to the file of C.B.C.I.D., Cuddalore District for fair trial.ORDER1. The petitioner is the wife of accused Thandayuthapani, facing trial under Section 302 of IPC. A case in Crime No.154 of 2011 was registered against the husband of the petitioner under Sections 294(b), 452, 506(i) and 307 IPC, which was later on converted to Section 302 IPC. The case was registered on the statement of deceased Suguna on 26.06.2011.2. It is the submission of the petitioner that the deceased deposed that Thiru Thandayuthapani and his brother Kothandapani abused the deceased and threatened to hang her for not severing illicit relationship of her husband with Tamil Selvi, daughter of the second accused.3. Being ashamed by this allegation, she attempted to commit suicide, and ...
C.Mani Vs. the Director of Rural Development.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to regularize the petitioner in the post of Water Assistant in the fourth respondent Panchayat and continue to pay the salary regularly to the petitioner pursuant to the appointment order dated 01.03.2006.ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction directing the fourth respondent to regularize the petitioner in the post of Water Assistant in the fourth respondent Panchayat and continue to pay the salary regularly to the petitioner pursuant to the appointment order dated 01.03.2006.2. The case of the petitioner is that through G.O.Ms.No.226 Rural Development (C1) dated 15.10.1996, Velamparai Drinking Water Scheme was started and the fourth respondent Panchayat invited the local people to donate lands for the establishment of the water storage tank by offering an employment opportunity at the office of the fourth respondent Panchayat. Acc...
Ponnan Chetty at Ponnusamy Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from permitting and quarrying operation (lime stone quarry) in S.Nos.17 to 20, Vialapadi village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District in violation of Rule 36(1-A) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959.ORDER1. Mr.M.L.Mahendran, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4.2. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 13.10.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first ...
Tmt.M.Mani Vs. the Director of Elementary Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent relating to Pro.Na.Ka.No.2655/ A2/ 2011 dated 16.9.2011 quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to serve in the same school till to the petitioner retirement on 31.07.2012.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of transfer dated 16.09.2011 with consequential prayer for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post till her retirement on 31.07.2012.2. The petitioner joined the service as Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.06.1988 and was thereafter promoted as Elementary School Headmistress on 03.06.2002, and Middle School Headmistress, Panchayat Union Middle School, Gandhipuram Panamarathupatti Panchayat Union on 01.06.20...
Sumangala Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy 1. Heard both sides. The impugned goods were not allowed to be exported by the customs authorities holding them to be non-alloy steel. The matter came before the Tribunal earlier when it was found that the test reports obtained by the appellants from M/s.Kidao Laboratories and the test reports got by the customs authorities from M/s.National Metallurgical Laboratory (NML) were different. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after retesting of the samples by the NML. The jurisdictional Commissioner has since passed a fresh order against which the present appeals have been preferred. 2. In the impugned order, the adjudicating Commissioner has held the impugned goods to be non-alloy steel. He has confiscated the goods and has allowed the same to be taken back on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.45 lakhs. He has imposed penalties of Rs.12 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs on the appellant-company under Sections 114 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. He has also impose...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »