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.
R.N.Seenivasan Vs. Commissioner of Madurai Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. The petitioner is the brother of Late Sathasivam, S/o.Narayanan who died on 06.06.2003 in Paris in France. He had brothers and sisters has remained as Bachelor. An application was made for grant of legal heir certificate. Since no certificate was forthcoming, the present petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7667 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the Tahsildar, North Taluk, Madurai to issue a legal heir certificate. It is only after such direction, legal heir certificate was issued setting out the names of legal heirs of Late.Sathasivam. The said Sathasivam had two sisters and three brothers. The present petitioner is the last brother who was the resident of the same house namely, 158, L.I.G.Colony, Lake View Road, K.K.Nagar, Madurai.2.When the petitioner approached the officials of the Corporation, to change the name for the issuance of the house tax in favour of the house owned by his brother, he was informed that he should file an appropriate application with the su...
R.Suriyanarayanan Vs. C.Vasanthal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009 made in A.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2009 made in O.S.No.86 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikudi.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 plaintiff filed the suit for injunction based on the facts that the suit property originally belonged to one Perumal by virtue of he having enjoyed it and also paying tax for the superstructure thereon; inasmuch as he had no issues, he executed the Will in favour of one Raman who in turn executed the sale deed dated 13.03.2008 (Ex.P.2) in favour of the plaintiff; whereupon the plaintiff has been in possession and occupation ...
The Vasudevanallur Town. Vs. the Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. The petitioner is the Vasudevanallur Town Panchayat, represented through its Executive Officer. In the writ petition, town panchayat seeks for a direction to the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Vasudevanallur, Sivagiri Taluk, to transfer the assets stand in the name of Rajagopalaperikulam, a Bound situated in Shenbegavinayagar Kovil Street, a vacant site and six shops situated on the west of the Vasudevanallur Police Station which lie under the jurisdiction of the petitioner town panchayat from the respondent for maintenance and management along with deposits and licence fees.2.It is seen from the records that the petitioner sent a letter to the District Collector on 05.11.2007 as well as on 26.11.2007 seeking for entrustment of the properties which belong to the panchayat and the resolution passed by the town panchayat was also enclosed. When they do not receive reply from the District Collector a further meeting was held on 05.11.2007 by resolution No.577, the respondent was directe...
Kalimuthu Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. Curiously the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ petition seeking for providing adequate police protection for delivery of his property in Survey No.341/1 to the extent of 0.45 cents in Uppukottai Village, Theni District, in pursuant to the decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam in O.S.No.493 of 1989 dated 30.08.1990.2.By the aforesaid decree, the present petitioner, who was the first plaintiff, sought for injunction against the defendants from constructing new building in the suit property and they should not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The construction that was made on the western side of the property should be demolished and removed. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed an appeal in A.S.No.61 of 1991 before the Sub Court, Periyakulam. The Sub Court, Periyakulam by judgment and decree dated 16.09.1994 allowed the appeal and granted the relief as prayed for in the original suit. It was thereafter, ...
P. Deivasigamani Vs. K.M. Subramaniam
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.10.2011, 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. Complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of motorcycle parked in the opposite partys theatre complex for the loss and Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs. 3. The complainant on 15.9.07 in order to view the matinee show cinema he parked his TN-V-7753 diesel bullet two wheeler, after obtaining token for the same by pay Rs.3/- as charges at the parking place and at about 5.30 pm when he came out the theatre for taking the vehicle, the vehicle was not found for and it was stolen. When the opposite party was enquired proper response was not made and thereby a police complaint was given and the...
Murshetha Parveen Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The two petitioners who are the resident of Subburaj Nagar, Bodinaiakkanur, Theni District have filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bodinaiakanoor.2.The second respondent herein in subdividing the property and granting patta in favour of the third respondent, the property in which S.No.389/1C3 was sub divided, 389/1C3A and 389/1C3B to the total extent of 15.83 acres was divided into 1.12 acres in favour of the third respondent and 14.71 acres in favour of the petitioners.3.It is seen from the impugned order that the third respondent made an application on 29.12.2008 to the Tahsildar and report was called for from the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, on the basis of the inspection report, dated 17.04.2009 referred to these documents, the sub division was made and the name was included in the patta in patta No.6220.4.The petitioners aggrieved by the sub division of the property and giving patta to totally to a stranger, has filed the present ...
M.Swarnam Vs. the Managing Directorr and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The petitioner is a resident of Rajagopalapuram residing at Park Nagar, Pudukottai District. In this writ petition, she has sought for a direction to the respondent to consider her representation dated 30.08.2011 for allotmetn of plot described as (shop No.1) under Rural Development Scheme in Phase III, Poonga Nagar, Pudukkottai, Trichy Housing Unit.2.When the writ petition came up for admission on 22.01.2011, this Court ordered notice of motion and granted private notice. In the meanwhile, one Mathialagan, who was an allottee of the plot in question has filed M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 seeking to implead himself in the writ petition and that was ordered today.3.The case of the third respondent (impleaded) is that he had applied for Shop No.1 in the housing unit and which was allotted to him on 30.11.2010 (long before the petitioner filed the writ petition). Subsequent to the allotment, he has paid the sale consideration of Rs.17,11,500/- to the Housing Board and registered a sale deed, d...
Ms.Jeyavel Transporters. Vs. the Warehouse Manager and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The petitioner is the transport operator having a written contract with the Central Warehousing Corporation with reference to loading and unloading and handling of food grains and fertilizers meant for the Food Corporation of India from the Railway Goods Yard at Koodal Nagar, Madurai to the Central Warehousing Corporation. The petitioner was originally sought for a relief of quashing the bill issued by the second respondent, dated 12.08.2005, in respect of deduction towards demurrage charges of Rs.89,700/- for non clearance of the railway rake Ex. NLDA alone and for a further direction to refund the said amount with interest.2.That writ petition, when it came up for admission on 23.12.2005, it was admitted. Subsequently, the petitioner filed two applications in M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 seeking for impleadment of the third and fourth respondents viz., the Southern Railway, represented by its Senior Divisional Commercial Manager and the fourth respondent viz., Food Corporati...
The Madurai Paddy Commission Vs. the Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The petitioner is a Paddy Commission Agents Association claims to be a Registered Association with registration No.25 of 1995. The petitioner had not produced any registration certificate to show that its registration exists till date. It had also not disclosed the names of its members for whose benefit it had filed the writ petition. Without disclosure of full facts, i.e. the name of its members, the shop number allotted, the agreements signed by them, the undertakings executed at the time of allotment, the arrears due and payable by each one of them, the issues raised in the writ petition cannot be adjudicated.2. In this writ petition the petitioner association challenges an order passed by the Secretary of the Marketing Committee, Madurai dated 18.01.2011 in response to the Association's letters dated 11.01.2011 and 14.01.2011. The Marketing Committee, i.e. the second respondent returned the drafts sent by 95 traders containing 124 drafts amounting to Rs.2,24,22,430/- by stating ...
Madurai Aruppukkottai Nadar Vs. District Registrar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. Despite a Full Bench decision of this Court in C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee, Karisal, through its Secretary, Sri.S.David Stephen Vs. The District Registrar Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli reported in 2005(2) CTC 161, writ petitions are continued to be filed before this Court as if the dictum laid down by the Full Bench has any binding effect.2.It may be the privilege of the litigants and represented through their counsels to file innumerable cases, but no such privileges are not conferred on this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to derail dictum laid by larger benches. The principle of stare decisis to follow the ratio decidendi of a Full Bench of this Court cannot be overcome at the instance of the petitioner.3.The Full Bench in paragraph 20 of the judgement referred to above, clearly says that the Registrar should satisfy himself about the particulars furnished in Form No.VII, is not larger than that of a mi...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »