Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Jul 31 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

Kumaran Institute of Technology Represented by its Principal, Thiruvallur vs (1) All India Council for Technical Education Represented by its Member Secretary, New Delhi; (2) Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai; (3) Anna university Represented by its Registrar, Chennai; (4) Secretary Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions Anna University Campus, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Jul 2014]

M. Raja vs (1) State Bank of India, Represented by the Assistant General Manager, Region IV (Disciplinary Authority), Disciplinary Proceedings Section, Zonal Office, Tiruchirapalli; (2) Enquiry Officer, Chief Manager, LPC, RBO Region No III, State Bank of India, Tiruchirapalli  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2014]

(1) A. Arivajagane; (2) R. Kasivelu; (3) P. K. Viswanathan, Ex-CISF HC/GD, Chennai vs (1) Union of India, Represented by Deputy Inspector of General, Central Industrial Security Forces, (Ministry of Home Affairs), Durgapore Steel Plant, Durgapore; (2) Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, Durgapore Steel Plant, Durgapore; (3) Director General, CISF Head Quarters, New Delhi; (4) Inspector General, CISF Head Quarters North Eastern Zone, Premise No.553, West Bengal; (5) Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit ONGC Nazira, Assam; (6) Commandant, CISF Unit ONGC Nazira, Assam  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]
Defence & Security Forces - Central Industrial Security Forces Act, 1968, s. 9 - Removal from service - Territorial jurisdiction - Writ petition - Maintainability - Petitioners joined the services of Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF) as Constable - Charge memos were issued against petitioners and however were removed from services - Aggrieved petitioners filed appeals before Appellate Authority, which were rejected - Aggrieved petitioners filed revision u/s. 9 of the Act and Revisional Authority, rejected the revision - Hence instant petitions - Petitioners contended that order of punishment having been served in a place where Court had got jurisdiction, petitions were maintainable, as part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Court -

Held, facts revealed that except service of orders of punishment, no other incident had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Court - Art. 226(2) of Constitution was the relevant constitutional provision, which deals with cause of action/part of the cause of action, which give jurisdiction to entertain writ petition u/art. 226 of Constitution - In instant cases, no material of integral or essential part of cause of action had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Court - Thus, preliminary objection raised by respondents in instant cases regarding maintainability of writ petitions before Court on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction was sustainable - Petitions were disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned HC for redressal of their grievance within 4 weeks - Petitions disposed of.


(1) G. Kalitheerthan; (2) R. Ananthavalli vs (1) Secretary, State Board of School Examination (Hr. Sec) Tamil Nadu; (2) Director, Directorate of School Education, Chennai; (3) Director, Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai; (4) Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 21 Jul 2014]
Education - Practice & Procedure - Higher Secondary Course Examination - Awarding of marks - Key Answer Erratum - Claim of marks - Legality - Petitioner's daughters, appeared in Higher Secondary Course Examination during March 2014 and secured 1143, 1165 marks, respectively, out of 1200 marks and her overall percentage was 95.25% and 97-.5%, respectively - Petitioner's daughter was awarded 191 marks out of 200 marks in Biology subject, which works out to 95.5%, but she was expecting centum in the said subject and thus, photocopy of answer script was obtained and applied for revaluation and even in the revaluation, there was no change in marks and on perusing the mark sheet it was found that in respect of question No. 25, petitioner's daughter, though written the correct answer, was not awarded any mark - Aggrieved petitioners filed instant petitions - Petitioners contended that even in revaluation, respondent nos. 1 and 2 did not followed the answer key published by their dept. in awarding marks for question No. 25 and since the daughters of petitioners had written correct answer, they were entitled to get full 3 marks in the subject of Zoology and that they would get admission in a meritorious manner in a reputed Govt. medical college according to merit/rank list -

Held, rightly contended by respondent (Government) in respect of English version of question No. 25, there appeared to be a confusion as to whether a candidate had to write the answers as to the positive impact of the solar energy or negative impact of the solar energy and thus, clarification was issued by Joint Director (Higher Secondary Education) in the form of Erratum to Key Answer and any candidate who had written the answer in English in respect of question No. 25, if they written their answer correctly either for positive impact or negative impact of solar energy, the examiners concerned were directed to award 3 full marks - Candidates who had written the answer in Tamil was expected to write cl. (4) of the heading, which was at Page no. 182 of the Tamil version of the textbook and the key answer was also in consonance with the textbook version - Unfortunately, petitioners, instead of writing negative impact of solar energy, had written positive impact of solar energy and thus, they did not awarded any mark for that question, as according to the examiners it was a wrong answer - Tamil version of the key answer to question no. 25 was in consonance with the Tamil version of the textbook simply because a particular examiner had committed mistake in awarding 3 marks to a candidate, namely 'P', who had written the examination in some other centre, it should be repeated by other examiners who had valued the answer scripts in other centres - In instant case, petitioners failed to demonstrate before Court the counter answer was the right answer and then only he/she was entitled to mark for that question - Petitions dismissed.


(1) Management, Hotel Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, Dharmapuri District; (2) Management Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, Chennai; (3) Assistant Chief Manager (Hotels), Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, Chennai; (4) Regional Manager, Hotel Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, Trichirapalli vs (1) C. Athirstaboopathy; (2) Inspector of Labour, Krishnagiri  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

G. Janakiraman vs (1) State by Inspector of Police CBI ACB, Chennai; (2) Manager State Bank of India I.I.T. Branch, Chennai; (3) Manager Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai; (4) Manager Andhra Bank Medavakkam, Chennai; (5) Manager Karur Vysya Bank Velacherry Branch, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

B. Sampath Kuma vs (1) Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District; (2) Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

CCE, Salem vs K. P. R. Mills Private Limited  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 18 Jul 2014]

Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem vs V. Thangavel and Sons Private Limited  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 18 Jul 2014]

Sudhagar vs (1) Inspector of Police B2 R. S. Puram Police Station, Coimbatore District; (2) J. Venram Patel; (3) Seetha Devi  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

D. Saraswathi vs (1) Commissioner HR and CE Department, Chennai; (2) Arulmigu Vadapalani Andavar Thirukovil Represented by its Executive Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]
Land & Property - Administrative - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, s. 43 - Suit for eviction - Continuation of tenancy by LRs - Permissibility - Respondent no. 2 (temple) filed a suit for eviction against petitioners (tenants) stating that they need the property for running an orphanage - Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of temple and appeal preferred by petitioner's husband was dismissed and so also second appeal - Thereafter, temple filed execution petition and it was also ordered on 7-12-2010 - Petitioner made a representation to Chief Minister's Grievance Cell on 2-7-2005 for appropriate direction directing respondent no. 1 to invoke s. 43 of the Act to enter into a compromise by fixing fair rent and also imposing certain conditions so as to enable petitioner to continue as a tenant and it was forwarded to jurisdictional Joint Commissioner, but, temple without properly appreciating the relevant facts and events, rejected the said request by order dt.27-2-2014, and challenging the correctness of same, petitioner filed instant petition - Respondent contended that possession was given to husband of petitioner only in his capacity as 'Archagar' and he took voluntary retirement and subsequently, he died and thus, petitioner was not having any legal right to continue in premises as a tenant -

Held, though petitioner stated that temple in several cases, had allowed the LRs of original tenants to continue as tenants in the rented premises, no such material was produced before Court to substantiate the said ground and in impugned order itself, it was clearly stated that no such permission was granted - Petitioner filed W.P.no. 25908 of 2011 for similar relief and it was dismissed on 28-11-2011, and since no further challenge was made to the said order, it had also reached finality and thus, it was not open to the petitioner to contend otherwise - Court on a careful scrutiny of materials placed, was of considered view that instant petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal - Impugned order passed by temple was confirmed - Petition dismissed.


Thalith Kumar vs (1) Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District; (2) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District; (3) Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

S. N. Srinivasan vs M. E. Shahul Hameed, Secretary, Madras Gunny Merchants Association, Regd. No. 22/1964, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

S. N. Rajkumar vs (1) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chairman, Chennai; (2) Superintending Engineer, (TANGEDCO), CEDC/South, Chennai; (3) Executive Engineer (O and M), TANGEDCO, Chennai; (4) Assistant Executive Engineer (O and M), TANGEDCO, Chennai; (5) Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Represented by its Member-Secretary, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

In Re : (1) Vijay Autoparts Private Limited Represented by its Whole Time Director, Nayakankuppam Venkataramani, Chennai; (2) Ushas Autogears Private Limited, Represented by its Whole Time Director, Nayakankuppam Venkataramani, Chennai; (3) Mercury Precision Products Private Limited, Represented by its Whole Time Director, Nayakankuppam Venkataramani, Chennai vs   [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

(1) M. Subramanian; (2) Chellamal vs (1) V. K. R. Subramania Athithan; (2) District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi; (3) Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi District; (4) Tahsildar, Thoothukudi District; (5) V. K. R. Seethalakshmi; (6) V. K. R. Ramadevi  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]
Land & Property - Practice & Procedure - Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 - Restoration of patta - Title dispute - Proper forum - Legality - Respondent no. 1 (appellant) filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dt.14-10-2013 by respondent no. 1 therein and consequently, direct the respondent nos. 1 to 3 therein to restore the patta for S.No.568/1B1B1B measuring 5.25.0 Hectares, in the name of petitioner (respondent no. 1) and respondent nos. 5 and 6 - Single Judge by impugned order allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by respondent no. 1 therein and gave liberty to respondent nos. 4 and 5 therein to approach the proper forum as per law - Aggrieved appellants filed instant appeal - Appellants (respondent nos. 4 and 5) contended that Single Judge ought to have dismissed writ petition by directing petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief and further contended that there was no title dispute pending before Civil Court between appellants and petitioner and only as per the provisions of 1983 Act, the appellants had filed the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, challenging the deletion of the names in patta - Respondent no. 1 contended that Single Judge considered the issue elaborately and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of respondent no. 1 therein -

Held, once Tahsildar rejected the claim for inclusion of name in the patta, parties have to approach the Civil Court for resolving the title dispute - In instant case, it was to be noted that appellants started to claim title nearly after 20 years only before Tahsildar, who ultimately, relegated them to move before Civil Court, but, they preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer - However, said appeal was considered and allowed by Revenue Divisional Officer, by restoring the patta in the erstwhile names, as against which, a revision was also preferred by writ petitioner, whereby order passed in appeal, was upheld Thereafter, writ petitioner come forward with writ petition - Single Judge rightly considered the claim of writ petitioner and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 1 and observed that appellants were at liberty to approach the Civil Court as per law - Thus, Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by Single Judge, except to relegate the parties to move before the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law - Appeal dismissed.


A. Baskaran vs (1) Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai; (2) Joint Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Madurai; (3) Deputy Director of Public Health, Madurai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Hariraj Homes, Represented by its Partner Raghunathan, Chennai vs (1) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Represented by its Chairman, Chennai; (2) Superintending Engineer, CEDC/South, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai; (3) Assistant Executive Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai; (4) Assistant Engineer (O and M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai; (5) Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Represented by its Member-Secretary, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]
Electricity - Practice & Procedure - Electricity Act, 2003 - Electricity service connection - Deviation in building plan - Demanding of completion certificate - Denial of power supply - Production of NOC - Requirement of - Petitioner was developer of properties have applied and obtained sanction plan from respondent no. 5 (Development Authority) for constructions residential building of stilt + 3 floors and had accordingly commenced and completed the constructions in accordance with the said sanctioned plan - In order to effect electricity service connection, petitioners approached respondent nos. 3 and 4 to receive application for providing electricity service connection - Respondent nos. 3 to 4) insisted upon production of completion certificate/no objection certificate from respondent no. 5 to even receive their application and accordingly refused to receive the same for some minor negligible deviations - Hence, instant petition - Petitioner contended that under similar circumstances, Court was pleased to issue directions to respondent no. 5 (Electricity board) authorities to provide service connection without insisting upon completion certificate from the planning authorities -

Held, considering facts and circumstances of case and also taking into account the judgments cited by petitioner in in W.A.No. 1102 of 2007, W.P.Nos. 3847 and 3848 of 2012 and W.P.Nos. 5661 and 5662 of 2013, Court was inclined to allow the above writ petition as the said judgments have become final and was in operation - Thus, Court directs the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to receive the application of petitioners, process, consider and accord electricity service connection to the premises, without insisting on production of completion certificate/no objection certificate from Development Authority - However, it was open to Development Authority to take action against petitioners, if there was any violations or deviation in the construction put up by the petitioners - Petition allowed.


(1) Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai; (2) Chief Engineer/Mechanical/Coal, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai vs Western Agencies Madras Private Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney A. P. Kunhikannan, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Sarvothaman, Represented by his Power of Attorney, A. Hariraman S/o Alwar vs (1) Kgeyes Residency Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Sanmugam, Chennai; (2) Abdule Jalee; (3) Kalashetra Foundations, Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

P. Sangettha vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai; (2) Director of School Education, Chennai; (3) Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai; (4) S. Nagaraja Murugan; (5) Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District; (6) Government High School, Represented by its Head Master, Madurai District; (7) Giruja; (8) Joint Director of School Education, (Personnel), Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 16 Jul 2014]

Abdul Hameed vs (1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore; (2) G. Kunchithapatham; (3) Zubair Ali  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 16 Jul 2014]

Thanikodi vs (1) Superintendent of Police, Madurai District; (2) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai District; (3) Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 15 Jul 2014]

T. Rajavelu vs (1) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kancheepuram; (2) Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 15 Jul 2014]

Powerline Matrix Engineering Private Limited vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 15 Jul 2014]



Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer