Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from entering upon the land bearing Town Survey No.52 (old) new 110, Malayadipatti in Block No.7 and Ward-H of Rajapalayam Municipality.) ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from entering upon the land bearing Town Survey No.52 (old) new 110, Malayadipatti in Block No.7 and Ward-H of Rajapalayam Municipality and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper and render justice. 2.The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: (a) The property referred to above originally belonged to the father of the petitioner and after his death, the said property was inherited by petitioner and five brothers and they are the joint owners of the said property. (b) The brother of the petitioner Tr.K.S.Bheemaraja applie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to award one mark to the petitioner for Question No.25 and Question No.10 of Part III Physics Examination respectively and consequently direct the fifth respondent to revise the petitioners' rank for admission to the M.B.B.S. course and admit them in the appropriate college as per the revised rank.) COMMON ORDER 1. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, both the cases are taken up together for final disposal and a common order is being passed. 2. In both the writ petitions the challenge is to the answer given in respect of question No.25 (B series) and No.10 (A series) of Part III Physics Examination is wrong and thereby the petitioners have lost one mark for the questions. According to them, the question and the key answer is given as follows: In the photoelectric phenomenon if the ratio of the frequency ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayers: Writ Appeal (MD)No.407 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6798 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.408 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6799 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.409 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6800 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.410 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6801 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.411 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6973 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.412 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6974 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: W.P.(MD)No.7924/2012: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to remove the encroachments, strengthen the bunds and erect boundary stones on all sides of the Punganoor and Kothamangalam Lakes situated at Manikandam Panchayat Union, Thiruvarangam, Tiruchirapalli District, within a time frame. W.P.(MD)No.8106 of 2012: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and the 4th Respondents to remove the debris and rubbish, which have been filled-up unlawfully in the middle of Kothamangalam Aerie, Punganoor Aerie and Kallikudi Aerie to accumulate and to store-up irrigation water through the reservoir from Kattalai Canal for agricultural operation of the ayacutdars.) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI,J) The common prayer in these two Public Interest Litigations is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2000 made in MACT OP No.192 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nagercoil.) Is the widow who is expected by the society to live a life of austerity and abnegation, on remarriage is entitled to compensation in respect of death of her deceased husband is the issue to be decided. 2. The first respondent is the claimant who filed the petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in respect of death of her husband, impleading her father-in-law as the respondent, who is the sixth respondent herein. The claims Tribunal gave a finding that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of TATA Sumo Car and awarded a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- as compensation. 3. Challenging the finding on negligence, the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 4. The appellant is the insurer of the TATA S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the order dated 14.3.2012 made in IA.Nos.94 and 95/2012 in OS.No.521/2010 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur.) ORDER 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the order dated 14.3.2012 made in IA.Nos.94 and 95/2012 in OS.No.521/2010 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur, dismissing those applications. 2. In brief the facts are that the Revision Petitioner as Plaintiff instituted a suit in OS.No.521/2010 against the Respondents/Defendants and others for partition and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from creating any kind of encumbrance over the suit properties and further restraining the Defendants 9 to 25 from making any drenches and from raising any construction including basement etc. in the suit B-Schedule Property and also restraining them from ploughing the soil by using JCB Vehicles and dry the soil through heavy vehicles. An application for temporary injunction was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent in O.Mu.No.1493/Aaa 3/06 dated 5/1/2007 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Watchman with all consequential benefits from the date of appointment.) ORDER 1. The petitioner was appointed as a watchman in the fourth respondent Higher Secondary School, an aided School covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 on 11/6/2004. He was appointed against the vacancy that arose due to the retirement of one Thiru. Ramasamy. 2. The School sent proposals on 28/3/2005 for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Watchman. But the third respondent returned the proposal in the impugned order dated 5/1/2007 on the ground that filling up of the vacancies relating to non-teaching staff in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to call for the entire records and quash the same in Crime No.38 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police (Sub-Inspector of Police, DCB Crime, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District).) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.38 of 2007, pending on the file of the first respondent. 2. It is stated in the petition that the respondents 2 to 4 as complainants have given the First Information Report to the first respondent and the same has been registered in Crime No.38 of 2007 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the petitioner has been shown as sole accused. Further it is stated in the petition that the respondents 2 to 4 have approached the petitioner only for getting post of cleaning labourers in a foreign country and further it is stated in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 1.2.2012 made in unnumbered IA.No./2012 in OS.No.128/1997 by the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 1.2.2012 made in unnumbered IA.No./2012 in OS.No.128/1997 by the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam, rejecting the application filed under Order 3 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of the proposed parties. 2. The Respondents 1 to 7 as Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession contending that Arumuga Pillai and Nagappa Pillai executed a trust deed dated 30.4.1951 dedicating the property for the family Deity Sri Muthuswami. The said Arumuga Pillai and Nagappa Pillai died. After the death of Arumuga Pilai, who had no issues, the heirs of Nagappa Pillai were the Trustees of Sri Muthuswami Deity. In the plaint, it is specifically stated that Nagappa Pillai had three sons, namely, Muthu Vel, the Defendants 1 and 2 and two daug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to letter No.3127/FR-2/2008-6 dated 3/8/2010 and of the second respondent relating to the proceedings in C.No.S1/43577/07 dated 6/12/2010 and to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as Research Assistant from the date of his initial appointment and to absorb him in any regular post commensurate with his educational qualification.) ORDER 1. The office of Conservator of Forests (Research) Coimbatore by its proceedings dated 17/5/1994 called for the list of candidates to be appointed on daily wage basis to the post of Research Assistant from the District Employment Officer, Madurai District. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings, the Employment Exchange sponsored the list of candidates with the required qualification and ...
Tag this Judgment!