Chennai Court October 2011 Judgments
M.E.Mohamed Haneefa Vs. Sheik Abdul Khader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2011
1. The appellant herein is the aggrieved defendant, who succeded before the trial Court on the dismissal of the suit. But, in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the 1st appellate Court, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside and the appeal was allowed and consequently the suit was decreed against the defendant.2.The facts of the case, in brief, as put forth by the plaintiff before the Courts below, are as follows:The suit property was originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, by virtue of a purchase through a sale deed dated, 30.06.1928 and the father was in possession and enjoyment of the said property from the said date. The plaintiff was the son born to the father through his 3rd wife viz., Jainubi Ammal. The defendant was born to the father through his 1st wife. The defendant left the father and was living separately. The plaintiff, his father, mother and sisters were living jointly. During the said time, the father ha...
Tag this Judgment!O.Nagendran Defendant Vs. Arulmigu Meenakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-2011
1. The Appellant/Second Defendant has focused the present Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2005 in A.S. No. 182 of 2005 passed by the Learned 1st Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.2. The First Appellate Court, viz, the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.182 of 2005 dated 14.12.2005 has, among other things, observed that The lease period has expired on 7.3.1994 as per Ex.A.2 Lawyer's Notice. So the receipt of rent after filing of the suit would not amount to assent for continuance of lease. Apart from this, D2 has not taken any steps to continue the tenancy. Now the earlier tenancy has expired and no tenancy agreement was entered into between the Second Defendant and the Plaintiff, after the expiry of the earlier tenancy. Moreover, it is very clear that the defendants are irregular in payment of rent. So the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, allowing the claim of ejectment is correct and resultantly, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner Vs. K.Balu and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2011
1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions is the Rajapalayam Municipality, represented by its Commissioner. In these writ petitions, the challenge is made to a common Award passed by the second respondent Labour Court, Madurai, made in I.D.Nos.30/2003 to 39/2003 and I.D.No.69/2003, dated 07.10.2008. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court, directed reinstatement of each first respondent with service continuity and back wages. A direction was also given to the petitioner Municipality, to reinstate the workmen, within a period of two months from the date of the Award. The petitioner, challenging the common Award, filed these eleven writ petitions.2. The Writ Petitions were yet to be admitted and only Notice Regarding Admission was ordered by this Court on 06.03.2009. Pending Notice, an interim stay was given, directing the petitioner Municipality to deposit Rs.25,000/- in respect of each writ petitions with the second respondent Labour Court, within a period of one month. It is admi...
Tag this Judgment!Kamatchi Vs. Fathima Beevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009, passed in A.S.No.214 of 1996 by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi in confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.08.1996, passed in O.S.No.1 of 1988 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:The deceased plaintiff filed the suit for declaring that the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to the plaint scheduled property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, his servants and his agents from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property.4. The suit was resisted by the deceased first defendant by filing the written ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2011
1. The petitioner is the State owned Transport Corporation having Headquarters at Kumbakonam. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge an order passed by the first respondent, the Joint Commissioner of Labour Conciliation, Chennai in A.P.No.285 of 2003. By the order, dated 03.05.2006, the first respondent Conciliation Officer refused to grant approval to the petition filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.2.The writ petition was admitted on 31.08.2007. Pending the writ petition, the management did not seek for any interim order. However, on notice from this Court, the second respondent management filed M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 seeking interim direction to pay monthly wages in terms of Section 17-b of the Industrial Disputes Act and also to pay back wages. This Court by an order, dated 25.06.2008 disposed of both the applications stating that since...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner Vs. A.Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009, passed in A.S.No.214 of 1996 by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi in confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.08.1996, passed in O.S.No.1 of 1988 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The deceased plaintiff filed the suit for declaring that the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to the plaint scheduled property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, his servants and his agents from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property. 4. The suit was resisted by the deceased first defendant by filing the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Pothum Ponnu Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the first respondent,in Cr.M.P.No.8/ Goonda / 2011,dated 19.5.2011, and quash the same, and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Kannayeramoorthy, S/o.Mari, aged about 24 years, who has been detained in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court, and to set him at liberty.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. Even though various grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the present Habeas Corpus Petition, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is in respect of the delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.6.2011.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that there has been a delay of seven days between the date on which th...
Tag this Judgment!Lufthansa German Airlines, the Manager, Chennai Vs. C. Tamilselvan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant booked air ticket for his trip to Manchester, UK in connection with the export business on 21.10.2005 through M/s.Gay Travels, Chennai for his departure at 01.20 hours on 23.10.05 with connection to Manchester at 11.50 a.m at Frankfurt. The ticket for journey was confirmed. On 22.10.05 night 3 hours before the departure time, the complainant reached the Airport and the counter staff of the opposite party after going through the ticket and passport did not issue the boarding pass and questioned the complainant relating to his purpose of visit and when the complainant explained the details they have not issued the boarding pass and thereby he could not tra...
Tag this Judgment!Post Master, Nagakudaiyan Branch, Vedaranniyam Division and Another Vs ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for direction to refund the money order amount of Rs.625/- and Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to the deficiency of service by the opposite parties and for costs. 3. Complainant had sent the electricity consumption charges of Rs.220/- for his house and for his friend Parthasarathy in all Rs.220/- through money order on 4.7.2007 to the Junior Engineer, TNEB, Kariyapattinam 614 806 by paying money order charges Rs.11/- and obtained receipt for the same. The electricity charges are to be paid on or before 15.7.07. But the same was not delivered till that date and thereby the ele...
Tag this Judgment!The Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming for direction to pay the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- being the insured amount of his deceased father Perumal with 12% interest and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs. 3. The 1st complainant filed a complaint through the 2nd complainant and the complainants father insured with the opposite party under Janatha Personal Accident Policy for Rs.1,00,000/- for the period from 31.5.02 to 4.1.09 by paying the premium amount of Rs.150/-. The father died on 18.6.02 due to an accident by mini lorry. Immediately he was taken to Annamalai Nagar Hospital where he died. A case...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »