1) The document details an agreement between two parties to construct a multi-story apartment building. The first party had originally been tasked with construction but could not, so they brought in the second party.
2) The first party had already spent Rs. 6,50,000 for approvals and work. This amount was received from the second party.
3) The agreement specifies that the first party will provide 14 apartments to the second party before any other units are sold.
P. Chandira has filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai seeking permission to represent her husband R. Thangavel and her father P.P. Pattappan in court cases. Chandira has submitted notarized copies of power of attorney documents from her husband and father authorizing her to represent them in legal matters. She is currently working as an Assistant Engineer but has also pursued various degrees including MBA and law. Chandira requests the court to issue a writ of mandamus or other directions allowing her to represent her husband and father in court.
1) This memorandum outlines a writ petition filed in the Madras High Court regarding a property dispute and allegations of forgery.
2) It details the family history and property ownership of the late Perumal Mudhaliar and his sons, including complaints filed with the police by the petitioners against the respondent P. Kolandavel regarding a disputed will and efforts to seize the family property.
3) The petitioners allege that P. Kolandavel has filed fraudulent court cases and harassed family members in order to grab the property, and that a police investigation is needed to determine if the disputed will is forged. They seek dismissal of the civil case regarding the property.
1) P. Chandira and R. Thangavel have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai seeking various reliefs regarding their employment at Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC).
2) They are seeking to quash certain proceedings against R. Thangavel regarding his transfer and disciplinary action. They are also seeking fixation of R. Thangavel's seniority and monetary benefits.
3) They allege harassment, victimization, and delay in various proceedings by NLC authorities. They pray that they be allowed to jointly file a single writ petition to address their grievances.
The document is a letter from P. Chandira requesting permission to conduct a fast before the Chennai High Court. Chandira references 10 previous court orders from the Chennai High Court where he represented himself as aggrieved party. He states he sees the High Court as the "Temple of Justice" and the judges as "Gods". However, he is aggrieved by the orders passed. Specifically, Justice Manikumar did not allow him to argue as a party-in-person in one case. He humbly requests permission to fast either before the High Court or the Governor's office to seek justice.
This document is an affidavit filed in support of a writ petition before the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Chennai. It summarizes the career history and promotions of the 2nd petitioner from 1983 to 2013 within Neyveli Lignite Corporation. It details legal proceedings between the petitioners and NLC regarding the 2nd petitioner's transfer and non-promotion. The petitioners claim the actions of NLC were malicious and caused harassment. The petitioners seek orders directing NLC to submit reports, calling for relevant records, and regularizing the petitioners' periods of service with compensation.
This memorandum summarizes a writ petition filed before the High Court of Chennai by P. Chandira and R. Thangavel against 9 respondents. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to regularize periods of absence from work as duty periods and to enforce an apartment agreement. They are also seeking compensation of 7 crores for losses and mental agony suffered due to the acts of the respondents. The petition provides background on each of the petitioners and respondents and the circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition.
The document appears to be a memorandum submitted to the High Court of Judicature at Madras regarding a criminal original petition. It summarizes objections to a counter filed by the 8th respondent (Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore). It denies statements made in the counter and argues the case involves corruption and loss of government funds that were not properly recovered or investigated against multiple officials and contractors across three districts. It requests the court to direct a full investigation and recovery of lost funds. The memorandum is submitted along with additional documents in support of the petitioners arguments against the 8th respondent's counter.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition with the High Court of Madras seeking to quash police reports and court proceedings related to a forged will case. The petitioner alleges that the police failed to properly investigate the forgery and register cases against the accused. The petition outlines 18 grounds claiming deficiencies in the police investigation and judicial proceedings and requests an order directing further investigation and registering cases against the accused.
1) The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, filed this writ petition challenging illegal charge memos and proceedings against him.
2) The petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions - one in 2012 challenging charge memos by the third respondent, and another in 2012 seeking national awards.
3) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks to amend prayers and add respondents to his previous petitions. He asks the court to award him several state and national prestigious awards for 2007, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, and to quash respondent's opposing proceedings and resolutions.
1) The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, filed writ petitions in 2012 and 2015 seeking various state and national awards for 2007, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, including the Kalpana Chawla Award and Padma/Asoka Chakra Awards.
2) The petitions challenged the selection processes and awarding of the honors to other individuals. Notices were issued to government respondents but no replies were submitted.
3) The petitioner provided documentation of the selection processes for the Kalpana Chawla Awards to argue that he was the most deserving applicant. He asked the court to transfer those awards to him and provide the others he sought.
The petitioners, Chandira and Thangavel, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings related to their purchase of apartments in Pondicherry and Chennai. They allege undue harassment and mental agony by the respondents regarding the apartment deals from 2008 onward. They seek compensation of 7 crores and permission to jointly file this single writ petition as their grievances are common regarding the jointly purchased properties.
This document is a memorandum filed with the High Court of Madras regarding criminal cases and petitions. It summarizes several criminal cases and complaints filed by the petitioner against various government officials and departments. It requests the court to direct the respondents to submit reports and records regarding the cases, and to take necessary action against the accused officials to recover losses and prevent them from escaping punishment. It provides details of several FIRs filed, departmental investigations conducted, and complaints submitted by the petitioner to various authorities over allegations of corruption and misconduct.
1. The petitioner filed two criminal petitions seeking transfer of investigation into her complaints to other agencies like the Vigilance department or CBI, alleging a perfunctory investigation by the police.
2. The police counter stated that they summoned the petitioner and others for inquiry but the petitioner did not cooperate or provide documents. The inquiry found that work was awarded to a contractor through proper tender process, not the petitioner.
3. The court dismissed the petitions, saying the complaints were an attempt to avoid disciplinary action for irregularities. It imposed a fine on the petitioner for filing frivolous petitions.
The petitioner filed a petition in the High Court of Madras seeking an order directing police to investigate the forgery of her grandfather's signature on a 1999 partition deed. The court notes that the police had already investigated and filed a report in 1999. The court ruled that a direction for new investigation in 2015 cannot be given for an incident from 1999, but that the petitioner can challenge the deed in a civil court. The petition was therefore closed and the registry's objection upheld.
Mrs. P. Chandira, an assistant engineer at the National Highways in Nagercoil, wrote to the Chief Vigilance Officer regarding Thiru. Natarajan cheating her without purchasing an apartment in Valasaravakkam, Chennai. Though Natarajan received money for the apartment, he did not register the property and made excuses when asked about it. Chandira requested the officer to take immediate steps in the matter.
This document is an affidavit filed in support of a writ petition being filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai by P. Chandira and R. Thangavel against 9 respondents from NLC, Neyveli. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to promote R. Thangavel to Deputy General Manager, regularize his transfer period as duty, quash disciplinary proceedings against him, correct his performance rating, and provide compensation for losses suffered due to harassment. The petitioners state they have common grievances and are seeking permission to jointly file a single writ petition.
Mamma Affidavit to correct rating and regularisation of periodchandira thangavel
Ìý
This document is an affidavit filed in the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Chennai by P. Chandira (1st petitioner) on behalf of herself and her husband R. Thangavel (2nd petitioner). It summarizes the career history of the 2nd petitioner in Neyveli Lignite Corporation spanning over 30 years, details allegations of harassment and victimization faced by the petitioners, and lists 12 orders passed in previous legal proceedings that the petitioners are seeking relief from through this writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the respondents to submit reports in the case and for records pertaining to the previous legal proceedings to be called for, in order to regularize the service period of the petitioners
1. The document is a response from the Central Public Information Officer of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited to an application under the Right to Information Act regarding employees posted to the Barshingsar Project.
2. It provides the names and details of employees posted to the Barshingsar Project in an annexure.
3. It also explains that as per terms of appointment and promotion orders, employees of the corporation are liable to be transferred to any branch, department, or subsidiary of the corporation anywhere in India, and experienced executives have been transferred to the Barshingsar Project for its successful implementation.
1. Shri. R. Thangavel has been posted as Deputy Superintendent/Mechanical in the scale of pay of Rs. 4600-150-5350-160-6470 at the Barshingsar Mining and Power Projects in Rajasthan.
2. He will be eligible for promotion to the next higher grade as per the time bound promotion policy and fixation of pay as per rules.
3. He will receive allowances such as Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, and City Compensatory Allowance as per rules and Project Allowance of 250 of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 500 per month.
1. The document is a letter from R. Thangavel's wife requesting monetary benefits and promotion to Deputy General Manager based on his outstanding performance and selection for a project in 1991.
2. It details Thangavel's career history in NLC since 1983 and argues the charge memo and delays in his case were illegal.
3. The letter references many legal documents and court orders, and requests his period of service be regularized and he receive benefits due based on a Supreme Court order on performance ratings.
This document is a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding whether all entries in an employee's annual confidential report (ACR), or only adverse entries, must be communicated to the employee. The Court held that all entries, not just adverse entries, must be communicated so that the employee has an opportunity to make representations and request upgrades if they feel an entry is unjustified. Not communicating an entry was found to violate principles of natural justice and be arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, rules or policies stating only adverse entries need be communicated were found to be illegal.
Mrs. Pattappan Chandra Thangavel is a 47-year-old female Indian citizen from Tamil Nadu who is being recommended for the Padma Award. She currently lives in Neyveli-3, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu with her husband and works as an Assistant Engineer (H) for Nabard & Rural Roads in Panruti. She has previously received the Kalpana Award in 2007, 2012 and 2014 and a Central Award in 2012 for her work in public interest affairs.
This document discusses various legal cases and complaints filed by the author regarding corruption in awarding government contracts and honors. It mentions the author's applications for the Kalpana Chawla Award in 2007, 2012, and 2014, and alleges corruption in the selection process. It also describes complaints filed with police and vigilance departments against contractors and officials in various districts regarding corruption and harassment, but claims no action has been taken. The author requests sanctions for prosecution and investigations into the alleged corruption.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition with the High Court of Madras seeking to quash police reports and court proceedings related to a forged will case. The petitioner alleges that the police failed to properly investigate the forgery and register cases against the accused. The petition outlines 18 grounds claiming deficiencies in the police investigation and judicial proceedings and requests an order directing further investigation and registering cases against the accused.
1) The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, filed this writ petition challenging illegal charge memos and proceedings against him.
2) The petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions - one in 2012 challenging charge memos by the third respondent, and another in 2012 seeking national awards.
3) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks to amend prayers and add respondents to his previous petitions. He asks the court to award him several state and national prestigious awards for 2007, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, and to quash respondent's opposing proceedings and resolutions.
1) The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, filed writ petitions in 2012 and 2015 seeking various state and national awards for 2007, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, including the Kalpana Chawla Award and Padma/Asoka Chakra Awards.
2) The petitions challenged the selection processes and awarding of the honors to other individuals. Notices were issued to government respondents but no replies were submitted.
3) The petitioner provided documentation of the selection processes for the Kalpana Chawla Awards to argue that he was the most deserving applicant. He asked the court to transfer those awards to him and provide the others he sought.
The petitioners, Chandira and Thangavel, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings related to their purchase of apartments in Pondicherry and Chennai. They allege undue harassment and mental agony by the respondents regarding the apartment deals from 2008 onward. They seek compensation of 7 crores and permission to jointly file this single writ petition as their grievances are common regarding the jointly purchased properties.
This document is a memorandum filed with the High Court of Madras regarding criminal cases and petitions. It summarizes several criminal cases and complaints filed by the petitioner against various government officials and departments. It requests the court to direct the respondents to submit reports and records regarding the cases, and to take necessary action against the accused officials to recover losses and prevent them from escaping punishment. It provides details of several FIRs filed, departmental investigations conducted, and complaints submitted by the petitioner to various authorities over allegations of corruption and misconduct.
1. The petitioner filed two criminal petitions seeking transfer of investigation into her complaints to other agencies like the Vigilance department or CBI, alleging a perfunctory investigation by the police.
2. The police counter stated that they summoned the petitioner and others for inquiry but the petitioner did not cooperate or provide documents. The inquiry found that work was awarded to a contractor through proper tender process, not the petitioner.
3. The court dismissed the petitions, saying the complaints were an attempt to avoid disciplinary action for irregularities. It imposed a fine on the petitioner for filing frivolous petitions.
The petitioner filed a petition in the High Court of Madras seeking an order directing police to investigate the forgery of her grandfather's signature on a 1999 partition deed. The court notes that the police had already investigated and filed a report in 1999. The court ruled that a direction for new investigation in 2015 cannot be given for an incident from 1999, but that the petitioner can challenge the deed in a civil court. The petition was therefore closed and the registry's objection upheld.
Mrs. P. Chandira, an assistant engineer at the National Highways in Nagercoil, wrote to the Chief Vigilance Officer regarding Thiru. Natarajan cheating her without purchasing an apartment in Valasaravakkam, Chennai. Though Natarajan received money for the apartment, he did not register the property and made excuses when asked about it. Chandira requested the officer to take immediate steps in the matter.
This document is an affidavit filed in support of a writ petition being filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai by P. Chandira and R. Thangavel against 9 respondents from NLC, Neyveli. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to promote R. Thangavel to Deputy General Manager, regularize his transfer period as duty, quash disciplinary proceedings against him, correct his performance rating, and provide compensation for losses suffered due to harassment. The petitioners state they have common grievances and are seeking permission to jointly file a single writ petition.
Mamma Affidavit to correct rating and regularisation of periodchandira thangavel
Ìý
This document is an affidavit filed in the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Chennai by P. Chandira (1st petitioner) on behalf of herself and her husband R. Thangavel (2nd petitioner). It summarizes the career history of the 2nd petitioner in Neyveli Lignite Corporation spanning over 30 years, details allegations of harassment and victimization faced by the petitioners, and lists 12 orders passed in previous legal proceedings that the petitioners are seeking relief from through this writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the respondents to submit reports in the case and for records pertaining to the previous legal proceedings to be called for, in order to regularize the service period of the petitioners
1. The document is a response from the Central Public Information Officer of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited to an application under the Right to Information Act regarding employees posted to the Barshingsar Project.
2. It provides the names and details of employees posted to the Barshingsar Project in an annexure.
3. It also explains that as per terms of appointment and promotion orders, employees of the corporation are liable to be transferred to any branch, department, or subsidiary of the corporation anywhere in India, and experienced executives have been transferred to the Barshingsar Project for its successful implementation.
1. Shri. R. Thangavel has been posted as Deputy Superintendent/Mechanical in the scale of pay of Rs. 4600-150-5350-160-6470 at the Barshingsar Mining and Power Projects in Rajasthan.
2. He will be eligible for promotion to the next higher grade as per the time bound promotion policy and fixation of pay as per rules.
3. He will receive allowances such as Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, and City Compensatory Allowance as per rules and Project Allowance of 250 of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 500 per month.
1. The document is a letter from R. Thangavel's wife requesting monetary benefits and promotion to Deputy General Manager based on his outstanding performance and selection for a project in 1991.
2. It details Thangavel's career history in NLC since 1983 and argues the charge memo and delays in his case were illegal.
3. The letter references many legal documents and court orders, and requests his period of service be regularized and he receive benefits due based on a Supreme Court order on performance ratings.
This document is a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding whether all entries in an employee's annual confidential report (ACR), or only adverse entries, must be communicated to the employee. The Court held that all entries, not just adverse entries, must be communicated so that the employee has an opportunity to make representations and request upgrades if they feel an entry is unjustified. Not communicating an entry was found to violate principles of natural justice and be arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, rules or policies stating only adverse entries need be communicated were found to be illegal.
Mrs. Pattappan Chandra Thangavel is a 47-year-old female Indian citizen from Tamil Nadu who is being recommended for the Padma Award. She currently lives in Neyveli-3, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu with her husband and works as an Assistant Engineer (H) for Nabard & Rural Roads in Panruti. She has previously received the Kalpana Award in 2007, 2012 and 2014 and a Central Award in 2012 for her work in public interest affairs.
This document discusses various legal cases and complaints filed by the author regarding corruption in awarding government contracts and honors. It mentions the author's applications for the Kalpana Chawla Award in 2007, 2012, and 2014, and alleges corruption in the selection process. It also describes complaints filed with police and vigilance departments against contractors and officials in various districts regarding corruption and harassment, but claims no action has been taken. The author requests sanctions for prosecution and investigations into the alleged corruption.
1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUDHUCHERRY OOAA 718218
53856 R.RAMESH
19.10.09 STAMP VENDOR
PONDICHERRY.
AGREEMENTBOND
Mr.N.Chinnadurai,S/o Dr.A.R.Nellian, Saram, D.R.Nager, No:90,2nd
Cross
Street, Pudhucherry-605013 and Mr.R.Venkatachalapathy, Nehru Nagar, No:25,
2nd Cross Street ,Pudhucherry-605004 jointly as the first party mutually accepted
made an agreement on 2nd
day November 2009 with second party
Mr.C.Vijayaraman, S/o N.Chandrasekaran, Ellaipillai Chavadi,
Siddananda Nager, Block-3, No: 28, Basement Floor, Pudhucherry-605005 is that
1st
Party 2nd
Party
N.Chinnadurai C.Vijayaraman.
R.Venkatachalapathy
2. 1) Mrs.K.Alli,W/oThiru.V.Ellirasan,who is residing at D-1, Block-16, Telephone
Salai, Neyveli-607801, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu, 2)
Mr.A.Ellangovan,S/oThiru.Appavo,who is residing at Type-1 Qtrs,No:458-A, Block-
29,Neyveli-607803, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu 3)
Mrs.M.Kadeeja,W/oThiru.S.Mohammed Jaffar,who is residing at E-15, Block-19,
Ambedhkar Salai, Neyveli-607803, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu 4)
Mr.A.R.Sankar, S/oThiru.A.K.Raghavan,who is residing at C-35, Block-9, Panruti
Salai, Neyveli-607803, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu 5)
Mr.A.C.Robert,S/oThiru.A.Chellaia,who is residing at who is residing at Type-II
Qtrs,Block-6,147A ,Neyveli-3 6) Mr.K.Ganesh,S/oThiru.P.Krishnamoorthy,who is
residing at B-8, Block-12, Hneybee Salai, Neyveli-607803, Cuddalore District,
Tamilnadu 7) Mrs.V.K.Ravichandran,S/oThiru.M.Kaliyaperumal,who is residing at
Type-I qtrs,66-E,Block-5, Neyveli-607803, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu 8)
Mr.R.Thangavel,S/oThiru.S.Ramasamy,who is residing at E-77,Anna Salai, Block-
27,Neyveli-607803, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu &Mrs.P.Chandira W/o
R.Thangavel jointly 9) Mr.V.Gopinath,S/oThiru.K.G.Venkatesan,who is residing at
29-B,Type-III qtrs, Block-20, Neyveli-607803, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu 10)
Mr.T.Illamathi,S/o Late S.Dharmalingam,who is residing at D-17, Block-16,
Manimegalai Salai, Neyveli-607801, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu11)
Mr.S.Krishnarajan,S/oThiru.M.Soundappan,who is residing at E-35, Block-9,
Bharathi Dasan Salai, Neyveli-607801, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu. 12)
Mr.D.Ananthakrishnan,S/o R.Damodaran, who is residing at F-31, J.N.Salai, Block-
26, Neyveli-3. 13)Mr.K.Suhakar,S/o M.Kannan,who is residing at 24, Rajarajeswari
Nager,Pudhucherry the above thirteen members has appointed the first party as
their power to construct multi-storeyed apartment in their property.
As the first party has was not able to construct multi-storeyed apartment in
their property due to their other works, with the concurrence of the thirteen
members and the first party approached the second party to construct multi-
storeyed apartment in their below mentioned property and gave concurrence to
proceed the work.The 1st
has given assurance and no objection to the second
party to proceed the work in the below mentioned property.1st
party below
1st
Party 2nd
Party.
N.Chinnadurai C.Vijayaraman.
R.Venkatachalapathy
3. Mentioned property has spent Rs.6, 50,000/-Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousands
only for PPA Approval, earth work and other expenses incurred to the first party
and received the same amount from the second party. Therefore the 1st
party has
assured and no objection to the 2nd
party to construct multi-storeyed apartment
in their property as mentioned in the PPA approval and has to handover fourteen
apartments them before selling the remaining apartments to others.Further 1st
party assured that they will not give any problem to the 2nd
party in future.Hence
the both parties has made an agreement.
Property details.
1. Pudhucherry,R.D,Ulugerpet,Sub.R.D,within the Ulugerpet Municipal
boundary Village No:30,Saram Revenue Village,Jayaram Nager near Perumal
Nager R.Survey No:129/2,Kathastha Nember:1488,Patta No:322- includes 5R 50
Santiyar or 5943Sqft extent 10,11,12 and 13 nos vacant land.
Sakkupanthi: East of : Resurvey No: 129/1 Pudhucherry Housing Board Qtrs
West of : Resurvey No: 129/3 Vacant Land.North of : Resurvey No: 131/2 Vacant
Land.
South of: No: 7, 8, 9 Plots
2. Pudhucherry,R.D,Ulugerpet,Sub.R.D,within the Ulugerpet Municipal
boundary Village No:38,Saram Revenue Village,Jayaram Nager near Perumal
Nager R.Survey No:129/2,Kathastha Nember:1488,Patta No:322- includes East
west 30Ft.South North:60 Ft.Area:1800Sqft,No:8 Plot, Area:960Sqft,No:7 Vacant
Land.Hence for the both total measurement:East west:46Ft,South North:60Ft.
Area: 2760Sqft.
South of: Newly formed Road. West of : Newly formed Road.
East of : Plot No:9 . North of : Plot No:10.
For the above two items includes 8703Sqft.
Signed as usual.
1st
Party 2nd
Party
N.Chinnadurai C.Vijayaraman.
R.Venkatachalapathy
Witnesses:
1) Mr.V.Natarajan,S/o G.Venkatesan,C-24,Ammonia Road,Block-27,Neyveli-3
2) Mr.D.Ananthakrishnan,S/o R.Damodaran,F-31,J.N.Salai,Block-26,Neyveli-3
Notary Attested:
B.Viveganandan, Advocate&Notary, RegNo: 23/95, LD 4-5-1995
27,II CrossStreet,VenkataNager,Pudhucherry-605011.