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.
T.M.Thangaraj Vs. the Assistant Electricity Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. All the petitioners herein are running Saw Mills. By the orders impugned in these writ petitions, the electricity service connections to these Saw Mills have either been disconnected by the Electricity Board or directions issued by the District Forest Officer to the Electricity Board, to disconnect the service connections, on the ground that no Saw Mill can be allowed to function without a proper license issued by the Central Empowered Committee in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India.2. I have heard Mr.A.Abdul Kadhar, Mr.Veera. Kathiravan, Mr.J.Anandkumar, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan and Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.B.Pugazhenthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the Government/Forest Department and Mr.S.M.S. Johnny Basha, learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board.3. In T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court constituted a Central Empowered Committee and is...
Syed Tajudeen Madani Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition, challenging a demand made by the fourth respondent claiming consumption charges and damages for using a domestic electricity service connection for commercial use.2. I have heard Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The first petitioner is a practising Advocate. He has his residence at No.1, First Cross Street, Anaikatti Maidan, Beema Nagar, Trichy-1. The first petitioner had taken the first floor of the premises bearing Door No.6, First Cross Street, Anaikatti Maidan, Beema Nagar, Trichy-1 from the second petitioner herein, on monthly rental basis to run his Office as an Advocate. The premises owned by the second petitioner, in the first floor portion of which the first petitioner is a tenant, has a domestic electricity service connection. It is the very same connection that is used by the first petitioner for running his Advocat...
V.R.Subramanian Vs. R.M.Annamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 17.4.2009, made in I.A.No.461 of 2008, in O.S.No.44 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai.2. The petitioner in the present civil revision petition is the 16th defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.44 of 2006, filed by the respondents herein. The suit filed by the respondents, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, relates to the accounts of the AR.L.Trust, which is said to be situated at Srilanka.3. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.461 of 2008, in O.S.No.44 of 2006, stating that the trial Court ought to decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the said Court, as a preliminary issue. However, the trial Court, by its order, dated 17.4.2009, had rejected the request of the petitioner.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the trial Court had failed to see that the Trust in question had been registered under the Srilankan laws and the ...
M.Vijayakumar Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to secure and produce the detenue, namely, Jeyalakshmi, wife of the petitioner, aged about 22 years, before this Court and to set her at liberty, forthwith.2. The petitioner has stated that he is a driver working in a private concern. His parents had arranged a marriage with Jeyalakshmi, who is a close relative of the petitioner. The marriage had been solemnised, on 9.12.2010. Soon after the marriage the petitioner's wife had resumed her work as a teacher in a private school, at Thiruppuvanam.3. On the second day after joining duty she had not returned to her home. Hence, the petitioner had made a complaint to the second respondent, on 18.12.2010, stating that she had been taken away by the fourth respondent and kept in his illegal custody. Thereafter, she was brought back by the second respondent police and she had started living with the petitioner. However, on 27.3.2...
R.Santhana Raj Vs. the Chief Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition, seeking a Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from erecting any high tension electric towers in their property in Survey No.195/1D and 195.14, Veerasigamani Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District, in violation of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act.2. I have heard Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.Kasinathadurai, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are the owners of the punja land of an extent of 7 acres and 30 cents with a well and electricity service connection located in Survey No.194 and 195/14, Veerasigamani Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. They also own another extent of punja land in Survey No.195/14.4. According to the petitioners, they have planted 200 cashewnut trees, 68 palmirah trees and 600 gooseberry trees. The petitioners claim to have obtained a loan from the Indian B...
S.A.C.Alagan Vs. All India Islamic Foundation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original Plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009, passed in A.S.No.32 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai in reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2004, passed in O.S.No.141 of 2001 by the learned District Munsif, Melur.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. The short point that falls for consideration before this Court in this Second appeal is as to whether the Second Appeal is maintainable?4. A few points which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:The suit for bare injunction filed by the plaintiff was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred appeal. The first appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009, held that the matter has to be remitted back to the trial C...
M.PonnaiyA. Vs. Balammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1998 made in A.S.No.155 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1996 made in O.S.No.994 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai.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 thumbnail sketch of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the second appeal, would run thus: The original plaintiff - Kuppammal who died pending the proceedings filed the suit as against the defendant seeking the following reliefs: (a) declaring that the property described in the schedule hereunder belongs to the plaintiff absolutely;(b) and in consequence, granting possession of the property described in the schedule hereunder to the plaintiff by the defendant after removing the d...
N.Meenakshi Vs. the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. The petitioner is the wife of Late.Nagalingam, Korkai Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District.2.In this writ petition, she is aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar in returning the application made by the petitioner stating that her request for grant of patta by subdividing the property in S.No.45/1A1A1A cannot be considered as there has been objection by the joint pattadars and hence, it is not feasible to subdivide the properties.3.The contention of the petitioner was that a partition suit was filed before the Sub Court, Tuticorin in O.S.No.63 of 2008 and when the final decree came to be passed all the parties to the suit have compromised and filed a joint memo of compromise. The decree was passed in terms of the compromise memo, dated 05.09.20008. The compromise memo was accepted by the Sub Court and the land in question was allotted to the petitioner. It was thereafter, she filed an application, stating that unless sub division is made, the likelihood of the land which...
A.Muthu Vs. State Rep by
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. The two writ petitioners have filed identical writ petitions seeking for a direction to the Commissioner for Land Administration i.e., the first respondent to reclassify the land in R.S.No.127/2 and renumbered as T.S.No.5/2 in Emaneswaram Village, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District describing them as a Government punjai dry land and also to issue patta on the basis of their representation dated 17.08.2010.2.In the representation dated 17.082.010, the petitioners stated that earlier the two petitioners have filed a suit before the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi in O.S.No.123 of 2008, seeking for a declaratory relief stating that the properties in question are in their possession and enjoyment and the respondents/defendants should not interfere with the petitioners right to enjoy the property and to that effect a permanent injunction was sought for and they also sought for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents(defendants) to grant patta in respect of the lands which are...
M.Mani Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. The petitioners in these four writ petitions are close relatives viz., the petitioners in W.P.(MD).Nos.1807 & 1808 of 2011 are the sisters of the petitioner in W.P.No.80 of 2011 and the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1300 of 2011 is the nephew of the petitioners in the other writ petitions.2.The writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.80 of 2011 is filed by Mr.M.Mani, S/o. late Muthunarayanasamy. He was running a hotel by name Hotel Doss at Ayyaloor and the hotel was situated in Survey No.935/6. The claim of the said petitioner is that he had constructed the building in the year 1975 and has been in possession of the said building and also paying house tax, electricity consumption charges, etc. His name also finds in the village revenue records. The said building was acquired for the purpose of expanding the National Highway No.45 in Trichy - Dindigul Section. After the completion of the acquisition, the compensation was arrived at Rs.12,15,853/- as certified by the competent authority. The comp...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »