Chennai Court January 2011 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.
Pushpavalli Vs. the Secretary of Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.2. According to the petitioner, she had handed over a document executed by one Madurambal, proprietorix of Sri Lakshmi Study Centre, Chennai, wherein, it had been stated that she owes a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, with interest, to the petitioner. One Kannan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, V-4 Police Station, Chennai, had received the original document during the course of his investigation, pursuant to the directions issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on 3.5.2000. In spite of several representations, the said document had not been returned to the petitioner by Kannan, Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, V-4 Police Station, Chennai. Since, the original document had not been returned to the petitioner, she has not been in a position to file a civil suit, before the appropriate civil Court, to claim the amount fro...
K.S.Kalyanasundaram and ors. Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Auth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive, consider, process and approve the petitioners' application for demolition and reconstruction by issuing planning permission to construct residential flats in the property situated at Block No.97A to F, Sowbagya Colony, Anna Main Road (Ashok Pillar Salai), K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078 comprised in S.No.394/1 (part) in Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District without insisting or production of No Objection Certificate from the third respondent or any other Authorities concerned and to accord sanction for the same in accordance with law expeditiously.2. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent; Mrs.R.K.Kalpana, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent and Mr.A.Vijayakumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the third respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposa...
Tvl. S.S.D. Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the petitioner is granted four weeks time to pay the entire arrears of tax and additional sales tax, as per the notice, dated 24.12.2010, issued by the respondent. He had also submitted that the waiver application submitted by the petitioner is pending before the State Government.3. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for this Court granting four weeks time to the petitioner to pay the amount, as mentioned in the impugned notice of the respondent, dated 24.12.2010.4. In such circumstances, the petitioner is granted four weeks time from today to pay the entire amount demanded by the respondent in the impugned notice, d...
N.Srinivas and anr. Vs. Naresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
ORDER1. This petition has been brought forth by the petitioners seeking action against the respondents 1 to 5 herein for an act of contempt committed by them by disobeying the orders of this Court made in O.A.No.243 of 2006 in C.S.No.979/2004 dated 23.3.2006. 2.The case of the petitioners is as follows:The petitioners along with others have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before this Court in C.S.No.979 of 2004. While doing so, they have filed an application in O.A.No.1013/2004 for injunction, and this Court granted an order of injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property on 23.12.2004. The said injunction is still in force. The fifth defendant filed a counter. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2006, the fifth respondent made attempts to alienate the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed an application in O.A.No.243/2006 for injunction, and this Court has ordered sta...
V.Varadharajan Vs. the Board of Directors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
O R D E R1. Challenging the orders of respondents 2 and 3 in the impugned proceedings in RS.No.E7/33173/85 dated 27.9.1985, Proc.No.E7/1548/2003 dated 21.1.2003 and Na.Ka.No.E2/6089/85 dated 28.4.1994, and to direct the respondents to keep the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendent for the year 1985 as on 1.4.1985 and regularise him in that post with effect from the date of promotion given to his juniors, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent on temporary basis by the proceedings dated 20.3.1985 along with others before the regular panel of Superintendents was drawn for the year 1985. The petitioner also joined as Superintendent on 24.3.1985. At the time of drawal of the panel of Superintendents for the year 1985, the Regional Manager, Salem has reported that the petitioner was placed under suspension from 2.6.1985 and regular charges are being framed against him for the alleged...
Spic Pharma Employees Union Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to refer the dispute, based on the conciliation notice dated 27.07.2010, bearing ref. No.Na.Ka.357/2010 to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, City Civil Court building, Chennai - 600 104, by fixing a time limit for the Industrial Tribunal to decide the matter.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the members of the petitioner's union were affected by the action of the 4th respondent by way of relocation of the unit from Maraimalai Nagar to Cuddalore. Originally, 72 employees were shifted in view of shifting of the unit to Cuddalore and out of 72 employees, except 19 employees, all of the them have joined in the new place, namely, Cuddalore, wherein the unit has been shifted now. In view of shifting of the unit and consequential transfer of the employees to Cuddalore, a demand was made by the petitioner's union demandin...
G.A.NasiruddIn Khan and ors. Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Auth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive, consider, process and approve the petitioners' application for demolition and reconstruction by issuing planning permission to construct residential flats in the property situated at Block No.103, Anna Main Road, K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078 comprised in S.No.416 (part) of Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District without insisting or production of No Objection Certificate from the third respondent or any other Authorities concerned and to accord sanction for the same in accordance with law expeditiously.2. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent; Mrs.R.K.Kalpana, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent and Mr.A.Vijayakumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the third respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioners are owners of the property w...
Raji Vs. the Secretary to Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
O R D E R1. This petition is brought forth by the detenu himself challenging the order of the second respondent in Memo No.505/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 3.9.2010, whereby he was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in five adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No.340 of 2007 registered by Acharapakkam Police Station for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.476 of 2008 registered by Acharappakkam Police Station for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No.183 of 2007 registered by Sithamur Police Station for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Crime No.187 of 2007 registered by Sithamur Police Stat...
The Chief General Manager and ors. Vs. M.George Francis and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
O R D E R1. Being aggrieved by the Award in I.D.No.53 of 2003 ordering reinstatement of 1st Respondent with backwages, BSNL has filed this Writ Petition.2. Brief facts are that 1st Respondent joined the service in 1986 as Casual Labourer and he was granted temporary status Mazdoor in 1994. 1st Respondent was selected for Group 'D' post and was sent to two months training from 25.09.2000 to 17.11.2000. 1st Respondent has completed theoretical training and he could not attend the training from 01.11.2000. According to 1st Respondent, because of illness, he could not attend the training and informed the Junior Engineer, Training incharge that he would report after recovery from his illness. When 1st Respondent was on leave, the Officer incharge of Training Centre has sent a show cause notice dated 15.11.2000 to discharge the 1st Respondent from training was sent to his residential house. Since there was no response, by an order dated 24.01.2001 the services of 1st Respondent was terminate...
The Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Mallan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T1. Heard.2. All the four Appeal Suits were filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Special Tahsildar cum Land Acquisition Officer, Namakkal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2002 passed by the Sub-Judge, Namakkal in LAOP Nos.306 to 309 of 2000.3.The lands of the respondents/land owners were acquired for the purpose of formation of Salem - Karur Railway Broad Gauge Railway Line Project. The land owners' lands were situated in Kadanthapatty Village at Namakkal Taluk. The total land acquired in respect of the village was 1.50.0 hectares. After due procedure, an Award came to be passed in Award No.1/99 dated 07.06.1999 by the Acquiring Authority. The Acquiring Authority fixed the market rate of compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.331/- per Cent and worked out the compensation along with other statutory dues payable under the Land Acquisition Act.4.The respondents/Claimants were not satisfied with the marke...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »