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.
C.Shenbagakumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The petitioner is a third party in this writ petition. He seeks for a direction to the second respondent namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli to consider his representation, dated 07.12.2010 in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993 and pass further orders on his representation.2.When the matter came up on 22.01.2011, notice of motion was granted. On notice from this Court, third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 'nil January 2011. The representation referred to namely dated 07.12.2010, a copy of which was found enclosed in Page Nos.39 to 42, the petitioner described himself as Advocate Clerk residing at Kovilpatti and he also states that the third respondent in the name of vehicle check up, had ill-treated and tortured him and made a false complaint. He had also made complaints to the State Human Rights Commission and other higher authorities.3.The second respondent...
M/S. Appu Hotels Limited Vs. M/S. Ion Exchange Services Ltd.
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
(This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 28.09.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order.) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 : Complainant is a 5 Star Hotel having his brand name Lee Royal Meridian, Chennai and in the hotel premises at No.1, GST Road, Saint Thomas Mount for the purpose of water producing by Reverse Osmosis Plant for the use of the complainant. The opposite party at the cost of the complainant, supplied, installed and commissioned the plant and thereafter it was entrusted for maintenance under an agreement contract dated 26.9.06 for the period from 26.9.06 to 25.10.08 on monthly charges of Rs.25,000/- and as per the contract the opposite party agreed to operate the R.O. Plant for 3 shifts deputing skilled operator fo...
D.Johnrose Vs. Chidambara Vinayagar Pillaiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.2005 in A.S.No.90 of 2005 passed by the Learned II Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil.2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned II Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.90 of 2005 dated 13.12.2005, has inter alia observed that the person who executed Ex.A.1 has no right in the suit property and as such it cannot be accepted that the Appellant/Plaintiff has obtained possession and therefore, he cannot claim any kind of relief of permanent injunction and also that the Appellant/Plaintiff has not established his possession clearly and that apart, the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff has been barred by the limitation and resultantly, dismissed the appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs.3. Feeling aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court viz., the Learned II Additional Sub Judge, Nager...
S.Kennady Vs. Andalammal and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. C.R.P(PD).(MD)No.678 of 2010 is focussed by the 19th defendant to get set aside the order in I.A.No.312 of 2009 in O.S.No.554 of 2004, dated 22.10.2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Madurai.2. A.S.(MD)No.42 of 2010 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2009 passed in O.S.No.554 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Madurai.3. A summarisation and summation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition as well as the Appeal Suit would run thus:Andalammal, who is the first respondent herein in the Civil Revision Petition as well as in the Appeal Suit, filed the original suit for partition arraying her co-sharers as well as tenants in the suit properties as defendants. During the pendency of the suit, Kennady - 19th defendant filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.312 of 2009 in O.S.No.554 of 2004 for transposing him as plaintiff sensing that the said Andalam...
Ms.Sankar Chemical Lime Vs. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. This Writ Petition is filed by M/s.Sankar Chemical Lime, represented by its Managing Partner Mr.K.S.Raman, Tirunelveli, seeking to challenge the notices dated 02.01.2009 and 06.02.2009 and to set aside the same. By the impugned notice, an order of attachment of immovable properties was made by the respondents-Provident Fund Department and notice was issued to the petitioner for settlement of claim, failing which, a sale proclamation has to be issued.2. The contention of the petitioner was that the survey numbers shown in the notice situated in Pallikkottai Village of Gangaikondan Sub- Registration District, do not belong to the Company and it belonged to third parties. Therefore, the Provident Fund Department has no right to attach those properties in execution of their claim for the due amounts towards Provident Fund and in that premises, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.3. In the Writ Petition, notice of motion was ordered. Pending the notice of motion, interim injunctio...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Madasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate Court viz., the District Judge, Srivilliputhur, in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant in A.S.No.307 of 1993, dated 25.07.1995, by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Sattur, in O.S.No.418 of 1984, dated 30.07.1987.2.The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, are as follows:(i) The suit property situated in Irukkankudi Melmadai village was originally belonged to one Saminatha Pattar, who enjoyed the said property ancestrally for over 100 years and the said property comprised houses and stable for cattle. However, the buildings raised in the said property fell down except one house and the same remained as vacant sites. The tax registry with the panchayat was standing in the name of Saminatha Pattar and the tax was paid by him. The said Saminatha Pattar died some 25 years back without any issues. His wife predeceased him and his brothers sons viz., Th...
Ms.Sankar Chemical Lime Vs. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. The petitioner, who was a provident fund subscriber and was working in Thiruchendur Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, Nazareth, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the communications sent by the Provident Fund Department, dated 18.03.2008 and 22.04.2008 and after setting aside the same, he seeks for a pensionary benefit which was already paid to him and he is also entitled for provisional pension under the Pension Pay Order No.16583.2. In the first communication dated 18.03.2008, the petitioner was informed that he enrolled himself in the PF Scheme on 01.09.1965 and ceased to be a member on 18.07.1994 by settlement of his account. During the tenure of his membership, at the relevant time, he did not opt to become a member under the Family Pension Scheme of 1971. He exercised his option for joining the Scheme only in March, 1996, after the settlement of his PF account and after cessation of membership of the EPF scheme. Based on the option, the pension was alr...
The Management Vs. Commissioner of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. The petitioner in both writ petitions is the wholly owned State Transport Corporation having their office at Dindigul and represented by its Managing Director. W.P.(MD)No.8078 of 2007 is filed against the order of the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai (wrongly shown as the Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the cause title) made in Approval Petition No.55 of 2005 dated 09.01.2007. By the impugned order, the first respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour had declined to grant approval of the dismissal of the second respondent workman.2.That writ petition was admitted on 28.09.2007. Pending the writ petition, in an application for interim injunction, only notice was ordered at the time of admission. Subsequently, the application for interim injunction was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the second respondent workman took out an application for payment of last drawn wage in terms of the principle underlying in Section 17-B of the ID Act. This Court by an or...
Ravichandran Vs. Vijayadhas and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition is focussed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge (F.T.C.No.2), Madurai dated 25.02.2011 in I.A.No.180 of 2011 in I.A.No.419 of 2009 in O.S.No.138 of 2007 in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to effect substituted service at the last resided locality of the proposed 3rd party/19th defendant in O.S.No.138 of 2007.2. A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition at the stage of admission itself, would run thus:(i) The learned Counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs would narrate the following facts:The petitioners filed the suit for partition. Pendente lite, they came to know that the 18th defendant alienated some properties in favour of his daughter - the 19th defendant, whereupon the 19th defendant was added as a new defendant. The plaintiffs were given to understand that the 19th defendant was in Dubai. Steps were taken in that regard to get the summons...
S.Eswari Vs. S.Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition is focussed by the petitioner to direct the Family Court, Madurai, to number the unnumbered M.C.(S.R).No.3603 of 2011 dated 26.08.2011 and to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.2. The long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition at the initial stage itself, would run thus:The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed the petition invoking Section 22(1)(2) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as against her husband's brothers and sisters who inherited the properties of her deceased father-in-law and also who are in possession of her husband's share in the properties and however, they are not paying the maintenance to her.3. The Family Court to which the petition was presented, returned it with the following direction:Returned:This case should be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »