Chennai Court October 2011 Judgments
M/S.Blue Horse Granites Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to execute the lease agreement in respect of granite bearing patta lands measuring 1.03.0 hectares, comprised in S.F.No.519/1(Part) situated in Inunganoor Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District for which lease has been granted by the Government of Tamil Nadu as per G.O.(3D) No.42, Industries (MMB-2) Department, dated 20.09.2010.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land comprised in S.F.No.519/1(Part) admeasuring 1.03.0 hectares situated in Inunganoor Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District. The petitioner has also purchased 1.47 acres of land for the reason that more area is required for keeping the scientific quarrying equipments and also keeping the waste debris. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted an application on 11.07.2009 seeking quarrying lease to quarry granite from the said patta land...
Tag this Judgment!S.Dhanalakshmi Vs. S.Priya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendants 1 to 3 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2009, passed in A.S.No.9 of 2009 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2008, passed in O.S.No.134 of 2008 by the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. The summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:The plaintiffs filed the suit, seeking permanent injunction as against the defendants 1 to 3 so as to restrain them from interfering with the plaintiffs' right to use as a common one the suit pial as described in the schedule.4. The defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statements.5. Whereupon, relevant issues were framed by the trial Court.6. During trial, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Management St.Joseph Vs. Antony Chandrabose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. W.P.(MD)No.7736 of 2007 and W.P.(MD)No.7936 of 2007. These two Writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner management.2.In the first Writ petition, the challenge was to the order passed by the 2nd respondent / Labour Court, Tirunelveli in I.A.No.102 of 2005 in I.D.No.47 of 1994 and seeks to set aside the same and also to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award dated 02.07.2004.3.The second Writ petition was filed by the same management of the School challenging the ex parte award dated 02.07.2004 passed in I.D.No.47 of 1994 and to quash the same.4.The first Writ petition was admitted on 25.09.2007. Pending the Writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay of the impugned order.5.The second Writ petition was admitted on 22.11.2007. Pending the Writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. Subsequently, the contesting 1st respondent filed an application for vacating the interim stay petition in W.P.(MD)No.7736 of 2007 and also for a di...
Tag this Judgment!P.Ponnusamy Vs. the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is one and the same person. He is set to be a shareholder of Sri Udayam Motors Auto Finance having office at Kamagoundampatti, Theni District.2.The contesting respondents filed application before the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Theni complaining of the non payment of their deposit amount made by him. The order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum against the petitioner was not challenged in appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and was allowed to become final. It was thereafter, the contesting respondent filed a execution applications in terms of Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act for executing the decrees. Those applications were numbered and assigned various E.A. Numbers. Notices were ordered to the petitioner. It was at this stage, the petitioner is seeking to set aside the order dated 03.08.2008. Challenging the original order of the District Consumer Forum seeking to set aside the direc...
Tag this Judgment!The Kanyakumari Central Vs. the Assistant Provident Fund
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. The petitioner is the Kanyakumari Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Special Officer. In the present Writ Petition, they have challenged the order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation dated 02.02.2010. By the impugned order, the Provident Fund Authorities informed the bank that their representation dated 20.01.2010 cannot be considered by them as valid explanation.2. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation found that the 3rd respondent Co-operative Society defaulted to pay contribution towards Provident Fund and action was initiated under Section 8(F) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in that context a notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.08.2009 stating that the 3rd respondent has defaulted in making payment to the department to the extent of Rs.2,077,730/- and they were directed to pay the amount at the credit of the 3rd respondent to the Employees Provident Fund Or...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner Vs. the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. In these 66 writ petitions, the petitioner is the Commissioner representing the Rajapalayam Municipality. Aggrieved by the common Award passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai, dated 10.3.2011 in various industrial disputes raised by the contesting respondents, the present writ petitions came to be filed. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court had exercised its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the discharge orders given by the petitioner. It directed the Municipality to reinstate the contesting respondents with continuity of service. But with reference to the backwages, the Labour Court held that the workers were not entitled for any backwages, though no reasons were assigned. Since the workmen have not challenged that portion of the Award denying the backwages, this court is not going into that issue in these writ petitions.2.In respect of the industrial disputes raised by similarly placed workmen against the very same order of disc...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan Vs. Perumal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 28.03.1994 made in O.S.No.247 of 1989 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:(i) The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: (i) declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to the plaint schedule properties;(ii) granting a consequential relief of injunction against the defendants to restrain the defendants, their men, alienies, heirs, etc., from in any way interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties; or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties from the defendants;3. directing the defendants to pay cost of this action to t...
Tag this Judgment!Stephen Vs. Paranjothi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendants animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2000, passed in A.S.No.169 of 1998 by the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin in confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.08.1998, passed in O.S.No.423 of 1991 by the learned District Munsif, Srivaikundam.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property on the main ground that the suit property and the adjacent properties originally belonged to their father viz., Arumuganainar Nadar, who subsequently came to be known as Arulprakasam Nadar and after his death, they inherited the properties and got the p...
Tag this Judgment!T.V.Viswanathan Vs. M.K.Nagasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 made in A.S.No.129 of 2009 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Melur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2009 made in O.S.No.403 of 2004 by the learned District Munsif, Melur.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Broadly, but briefly, narratively, but precisely, avoiding discursive delineation of the case, the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs of declaration that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 absolutely and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the second defendant and for the past and future mesne profits.4. The defendants 1 and 2 separately filed their respective written statements resisting the suit.5. Whe...
Tag this Judgment!D.M.Anwar Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-2011
1. Habeas Corpus Petition No.912 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents, to produce the petitioner's brother, namely, M.Alif Khan, aged about 22 years, before this Court and to set him at liberty.2. Habeas Corpus Petition No.882 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents, to produce the petitioner's daughter, namely, P.Muthulakshmi, aged about 21 years, before this Court and to set her at liberty.3. The detenu, namely, M.Alif Khan, and the detenue, namely, P.Muthulakshmi, had been produced before this Court, by the third respondent, today. On enquiry, the detenu, namely, M.Alif Khan, had stated that he had married P.Muthulakshmi, aged about 20 years, the daughter of the fourth respondent, on his own volition.4. The detenu, M.Alif Khan, had submitted that he had married, P.Muthulakshmi, in the month of September, 2011, at Coimbatore and the marriage had taken place, voluntarily, by mutual consent, as no one had compelled them to enter ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »