Chennai Court November 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.
P.Chandran Vs. the Joint
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in Arulmighu Ramanathaswamy Thirukovil, Rameshwaram. In this Writ Petition, he has come forward to challenge an order dated 08.12.2007 passed by the Joint Commissioner -cum- Executive Officer of the temple, suspending the petitioner from service. The suspension was made on the ground that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department have registered a criminal case against the petitioner in Crime No.5 of 2003 and the matter is pending trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, in C.C.No.11 of 2007. Therefore, by exercise of power under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, he was placed under suspension and the reasons for suspension were set out stating that within the period from 01.01.1989 to 28.02.1999, the petitioner was accumulating wealth of Rs.20 lakhs, which is clearly disproportionate to his known source of income and by accumulating such wealth, he has c...
A.Rajiya Begam Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9618 of 2010 was filed by S.Masootha Begam and the W.P.(MD)Nos.10089 and the 10090 of 2010 were filed by the same petitioner one A.Rajiya Begam. They are residents of Ottanchadram.2.In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 16.07.2010 passed by the Executive Officer, Special Grade Town Panchayat, ottanchathiram and after setting aside the same, seek for a direction to allot Shop No.2 in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.9618 of 2010 and shop Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the other writ petitioner.3.The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9618 of 2010 was admitted on 27.07.2010. Pending the writ petition, this Court after referring to G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 held that there will be an automatic renewal of lease granted after the expiry of first three years up to 9 years. Though the Court did not give any direction for renewal of lease but considering prima facie cas...
S.Velammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. The third respondent herein is the father of the children, by names, Karthigaipandi, aged about 10 years and Ganesh Pandi, aged about 7 years. The wife of the third respondent, i.e. the mother of the children, passed away before five years. The petitioner is the maternal grandmother of the children. According to the petitioner, the children were only in the custody of the petitioner after the demise of their mother. While so, according to the petitioner, on 19.10.2011, the children were taken by force, by the third respondent and they are illegally detained against their wish, by the third respondent. In this regard, the petitioner has preferred a complaint to the police on 22.10.2011. Thereafter, she has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking to set at liberty, the minor children, and hand over their custody to her.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the allegations made in the complaint, would state that the children are kept by the third r...
ErA.Soundara Pandian Vs. Mrs.Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioner / complainant under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, challenging the order, dated 02.02.2009 passed in C.C.No.470 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, seeking to set aside the order of dismissal of a private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C and to pass further or other orders as this Court deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.3. Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein had filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 427, 341, 342, 389, 166 and 34 IPC4. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is owning land in T.S.No.2875 and also constructed his building therein. He used to take water from the well for drinking and domestic ...
The Branch Manager Vs. R.Seenivasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 03.03.2008 and made in M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Sivakasi.2.The second respondent/Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The claimant is the first respondent, whereas, the first respondent therein/ who is the owner of the vehicle is the second respondent herein.During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent/claimant (Seenivasan) had passed away. Hence, the respondents 3 to 8 have been impleaded as the legal-heirs of the deceased first respondent.3.It appears from the records that the deceased first respondent has filed a claim petition in MCOP No.15 of 2006 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Sivakasi, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him, in a road traffic accident, involving the vehicle belonging to the second respondent herein. Both the owner of the vehicle, as well as the Insurance Company have c...
The Managing Director Vs. A.Ramu Alias Veeranan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. When this appeal came up for hearing Mr.N.Asaithambi, learned counsel for the appellant is present. Despite service of notice on the respondent, who is the claimant in the claim petition, has not chosen to appear either in person or through his counsel. Even when the matter came up for hearing on 09.11.2011, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the Registry was directed to verify as to whether any learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. In obedience to the direction of this Court,the Registry has also verified and reported that none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. Hence, this matter was ordered to be listed today. Even today also, there is no representation for the respondent. Therefore, this Court has no other go excepting to decide the appeal in the absence of petitioner, on merit after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation.2. The respondent/Transport Corpo...
L.Kalirajan Vs. the Assistant Director and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. The petitioner, who is a resident of Melakottai vasal street, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the resolution No.68 dated 27.05.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent/Town Panchayat at Srivaikundam and to set aside the same and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to remove the underground pipeline laid in the private property of Kottai Pillaimar community in S.No.1143/1 starting from Melakottai vasal street upto the lane found in front of the house of the petitioner.2.The resolution, which is impugned, was passed by the Town Panchayat, Srivaikundam, in respect of an application received from the third respondent living in the Melakottaivasal street, 14th Ward of Town Panchayat, Srivaikundam for grant of water supply connection as well as, as many as 8 applications were received. Since the supply lines were not formed, the third respondent requested to lay PVC pipe lines in his own expenditure and the same was consi...
N.Nattathy Vs. the Chairman Cum Managing Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondent / Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North to grant driving licence and to pass appropriate orders.2.The Writ petition when it came up for admission on 31.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit dated 05.04.2011 was filed by the respondent.3.The respondent opposing the claim of the petitioner stated that under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it has been made clear that if the licensing authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the holder of the driving licence is, by virtue of any disease or disability, unfit to drive a motor vehicle and where the authority revoking a driving licence is not the authority which issued the same, it shall intimate the fact of such revocation to the authority who are issued with licence in terms of Section 16-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the authority, who considered the...
M.Shanmugakumar Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondent / Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North to grant driving licence and to pass appropriate orders.2.The Writ petition when it came up for admission on 31.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit dated 05.04.2011 was filed by the respondent.3.The respondent opposing the claim of the petitioner stated that under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it has been made clear that if the licensing authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the holder of the driving licence is, by virtue of any disease or disability, unfit to drive a motor vehicle and where the authority revoking a driving licence is not the authority which issued the same, it shall intimate the fact of such revocation to the authority who are issued with licence in terms of Section 16-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the authority, who considered the...
R.Ansalam Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. These two Writ Petitions were filed by the petitioners, who are allottee of shops in Thachanallur Zone situated in S.N.High Road, coming under the Tirunelveli Corporation. In the first Writ Petition, there are two petitioners, who have located the shop in shop Nos.1 and 2 belonging to the respondent Corporation. In the second Writ Petition, the petitioners are occupying shop Nos.3 and 2 in the same Complex. In these two Writ Petitions, all the four petitioners have challenged notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Triunelveli, dated 20.04.2004 informing the petitioners that the monthly rent for the above said shops has been revised, as per the resolution of the Corporation with effect from 21.01.2002. Therefore, the petitioners were directed to pay an advance of 12 months rent and also the difference in the rental for the period from 21.01.2002 to 31.03.2004. They were directed to pay the amount and also enter into a new agreement for renewal of the lease period. They were al...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »