Chennai Court October 2011 Judgments
Ramanathan Vs. Palkani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 4.7.2009, made in I.A.No.1 of 2009, in A.S.No.87 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin. 2. The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition is the appellant, in A.S.No.87 of 2007. The respondent herein had filed a suit, in O.S.No.36 of 2006, on the file of the Ditsrict Munsif Court, Tiruchendur. The said suit had been filed praying for a permanent injunction against the petitioner herein, in respect of the suit schedule properties. The suit had been decreed, restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the respondent. 3. The trial Court had stated, inter alia, that the petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit, had not proved his possession of the properties in question, by way of a report filed by an Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner herein had filed an appeal, in A.S.No.87 of 2007, challenging the judgment and decr...
Tag this Judgment!P.Karuppuchami Goundar Vs. R.Jeganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 29.12.2008, made in I.A.No.66 of 2008, in O.S.No.30 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.2. The petitioners in the civil revision petition are the plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.30 of 2004. The said suit had been filed praying for a preliminary decree, directing the defendant therein to pay the sum of Rs.5,54,000/-, with interest thereon, at the rate of 18% per annum, from the date of the plaint till its realisation, and in default, to pass a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged properties.3. The petitioners have stated that the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs, based on which the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, on 20.9.1997, for carrying on his business in automobile spare parts. The defendant, while acknowledging the debt, had offered the properties mentioned in the plaint, as security, by way of a mortgage, on 2...
Tag this Judgment!K.Murugan Vs. N.K.N.Krishnaveni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 31.12.2008, made in I.A.No.114 of 2008, in O.S.No.47 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Court, Theni.2. The petitioner herein is the fourth respondent, in I.A.No.114 of 2008 and the third defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.47 of 2007. The second respondent in the present civil revision petition had filed the suit, in O.S.No.47 of 2007, for partition of the suit schedule mentioned properties. During the trial of the said suit the first responent herein had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.114 of 2008, to implead her as one of the defendants in the suit. The trial Court, instead of rejecting the suit for non-joinder of necessary party, had allowed the interlocutory application, erroneously, by an order, dated 31.12.2008. The trial Court ought to have noted that the interlocutory application had been filed by the first respondent in collusion with the respondents 2 to 4, in the present civil rev...
Tag this Judgment!Faritha Banu Vs. the Additional Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu seeking for a direction, directing the respondents herein to produce the detenu Abuthahir, S/o.Mohammed Sherif, aged about 36 years, who has been termed as Black Marketeer, now confined in Central Prison, Madurai and call for records pertaining to the order of detention in 01/2011(CS) dated 24.07.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and quash the same and set the detenu at liberty. 2.We have heard Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Uthaman, learned Senior standing counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the impugned order of detention, passed under Act 7 of 1980, terming the detenu Abuthahir as Black Marketeer is not sustainable. He would further submit that the detaining authority has failed to see the real caus...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.Abisha (Minor) Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. The writ petitioner, who is a minor represented by her father and natural guardian, has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to take an action against the fourth respondent in the light of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.11.2010. By the said proceedings, it is seen that the District Collector, Kanyakumari District had informed the Chief Educational Officer that he should take action against the Physical Education Inspector who had prevented the petitioner from participating in the inter school sports competition conducted by the Tamil Nadu School Education Department. 2.In the writ petition, notice was ordered to the respondents. However, the petitioner in her own admission had stated that the Regional Physical Inspector had refused to allow her to participate because those studying in the CBSE schools will not be allowed to participate in the sports events conducted by the Tamil Nadu School Education Department. 3.Though ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.indroyal Crafts Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. W.P.(MD)No.14279 of 2010 came up for admission Mr.M.Azeem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that another Writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.14655 of 2010 filed by the sister's company namely, Ms.Indroyal Furniture Company Private Limited is also pending. Hence, that Writ petition was also directed to be posted along with this Writ petition and both parties were heard.2.On behalf of the official respondents, the learned Special Government Pleader appears. On behalf of the contesting union namely, the 5th respondent, Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel appears.3.In both the Writ petitions the challenge is made to a letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli namely, the 2nd respondent to the petitioners. The communication dated 16.02.2010 is the challenge in the first Writ petition and 12.02.2010 is the challenge in the second writ petition. Both the communications are identical, but, addressed to the two different petitioner companies.4.By the said com...
Tag this Judgment!Muniyandi Vs. Superintendenting Engineer and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 17.11.2008, made in I.A.No.284 of 2004, in O.S.No.297 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai.2. The petitioner herein had filed the suit, in O.S.No.297 of 2004, praying for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from erecting electricity poles in the suit property. The fourth respondent Tamilnadu Electricity Board had filed a written statement in the said suit, on 4.11.2004, stating that the electricity poll had been erected in the suit property, on 17.9.2004, even before the filing of the suit, on 21.9.2004.3. Even after the filing of the written statement, by the fourth respondent Tamilnadu Electricity Board, the petitioner had not filed any amendment petition, to amend the prayer in the suit, praying for a mandatory injunction. However, the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.297 of 2004, had filed an interlocutory application, in...
Tag this Judgment!R.Manoj Prabhakar Vs. State Represented by the Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. A shocking state of affairs is found reflected in the writ petitions. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging the order of suspension made by the third respondent, Principal of a self-financing engineering College at Kidaripatti, Madurai District. By the impugned orders, the petitioners were suspended. 2. The charges imposed against the petitioners were that on 09.02.2011 around 9.45 a.m. the petitioners trespassed into a class room and despite being prevented by the HOD who were taking classes, they entered into the class room and abused the college lecturers in bad words. When the other teachers and non teaching staffs came to prevent the incident, they were attacked by the petitioners. The petitioners have also caused extensive damage to the properties of the college and have caused disturbances to other students. 3. Due to the attack made by the petitioners, some of the teachers have grievously injured and were admitted to the hospital and kept under an...
Tag this Judgment!Karungal Ozhavar Pani Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. The Writ petition is a clear abuse of process. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society and they filed the present Writ petition seeking to challenge a notice of hearing issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Nagercoil. 2.Apparently, a complaint has made by a Trade Union on behalf of the 2nd respondent on 07.05.2008. Therefore, the Conciliation Officer taking the complaint on file and ordered notice to the management to appear for conciliation talks on 21.11.2008. In the very same letter he also requested the management to appear for a conciliation so as to bring a compromise between the parties so as to establish good industrial relations. Instead of appearing before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition. 3.The Writ petition was admitted on 18.12.2008. Pending the Writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of four weeks. 4.It is not clear as to how such a Writ petition is maintainable on a mere notice...
Tag this Judgment!M.Paramasivam Vs. P.Govindasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. Challenge is made in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the claimant, to the award of Rs.1,25,000/-, dated 12.12.2005 and made in MCOP No.244 of 2003 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Srivilliputhur.2.The appellant is the claimant. Whereas the respondents 1 and 2 are the owner and the insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.T.C.L.7387, which is said to have been involved in the accident.3.The appellant has filed a claim petition in MCOP No.244 of 2003 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Srivilliputhur, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the multiple fracture sustained by him on his left leg, in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 26.06.2003 at 9.30 p.m. near Weavers' Colony at Srivilliputhur- Sivakasi Road, auto bearing registration No.TN-67-3066, in which the claimant was travelling, was rammed by the lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the 2nd res...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »