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.
Vadasery Pothujana Kaitharee Nesavalar. Vs. Kaliappan and Rajagopal.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the Third party animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2010, passed in A.S.No.22 of 2009 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2008, passed in E.A.No.145 of 2007 in E.P.No.124 of 2005 in O.S.No.674 of 2004 by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.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 thumb nail sketch of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The appellant herein as third party filed E.A.No.145 of 2007 before the Executing Court in E.P.No.124 of 2005 in O.S.No.674 of 2004, which suit was filed by the first respondent herein against the second respondent for the purpose of getting a decree for specific performance of an immovable property and he got such decree also.4. The con...
Asokan Soloman Vs. S.Pushpa Rajasekar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the third defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 made in A.S.No.37 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005 made in O.S.No.252 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Shorn and bereft of unnecessary details, the germane facts could pithily and precisely be set out thus:The plaintiffs being the husband and the daughter of the deceased lady by name Thangabai, claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) in connection with the untimely death of her in an accident, whereby stone from the illegally run quarry on being blasted flew and hit her and caused her death.4. The defendants 1 and 2 who happened to be the contractors, filed their...
Nallathambi Vs. the Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenus, namely, 1.Victus (IC No.020288), aged 42 years, son of Xavior,2.Anthoniraj (IC No.5027) aged 32 years, son of Francis, 3.Johnpaul (IC No.018126), aged 25 years, son of Nambikkai, 4. Marimuthu (IC No.5164), aged 32 years, son of Muthuramalingam, before this Court and to set them at liberty.2. It has been stated that the detenus were fishermen, who were residing at Ottankuli, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District. When they had gone out to the sea for fishing, they went missing, from 2.4.2011. It had been stated that they would have been forcibly abducted by the personnel of the Sri Lankan Navy, as the Indian Cricket Team had defeated the Sri Lankan Cricket Team, during the recent World Cup Finals, on 2.4.2011. While so, the petitioner had preferred a representation to the 9th respondent seeking permission from the Indian,...
Thangapandian Vs. Thayammal Alias Esakkiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 18.2.2009, made in I.A.No.309 of 2007, in O.S.No.195 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram.2. The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition is the third defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.195 of 2003, filed by the respondent, for the partition of the suit properties. Originally, the suit had been filed, in O.S.No.25 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram. However, the District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram, had returned the suit, for being presented before the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram, due to its lack of pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the same. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.309 of 2007, praying that he should be permitted to file a fresh written statement treating the suit filed before the subordinate Court, as a fresh suit. The trial Court had refused to permit the petitioner to do so, by its order, dated 18...
P.Kottaichamy Vs. the Headmaster
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2011
1. It is the strange writ petition, wherein the petitioner seeking for corrections in the Transfer Certificate issued by the Schools in which the petitioner had studied earlier. The petitioner had named the Headmaster of two schools where the petitioner studied the Primary education, Higher Secondary education as well as the Principal of the College in which he studied as R1 to R3.2. The contention of the petitioner was his true caste is Hindu-Paraiyan, which is declared as Scheduled Caste under the presidential order and it is also evidenced from the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Madurai South. After obtaining the certificate describing the petitioner as Hindu- Paraiyan, he sent representation to schools and colleges seeking for altering his transfer certificate issued by those Schools and College.3. Admittedly, the community certificate was issued only on 05.06.2007. The petitioner on the strength of the said certificate, cannot have his school certificate altered into o...
The Management Vs. the Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. (i)W.P.(MD)No.4990 of 2008 and(ii)W.P.(MD)No.10901 of 20102.In the first Writ petition the petitioner is the management, aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.3 of 2003 dated 23.11.2007.3.By the aforesaid order, the first respondent Labour Court computed amounts towards unpaid wages for the petitioner from 22.12.2001 to 31.12.2001. The amounts worked out to Rs.5,68.20. Challenging the said order, the Writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner Management.4.Notice of motion was ordered on 11.06.2008. Pending the notice of motion, no interim order was granted.5.After waiting for two years, the contesting respondent filed the second Writ petition W.P.(MD)No.10901 of 2010 seeking to challenge the very same order in so far it relates to denial of wages for the period from 01.12.2001 to 14.12.2001 and for a consequential direction to the management to refund the wages for the said period and that Writ petition was admitted on 23.08.2010.6.In view of the fact tha...
The Principal Vs. Anna University of Technology
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The first writ petition is filed by the Principal of a Self Financing Engineering College at Jamespuram, Novalcaud, Kanyakumari District. The other four writ petitions are filed by the students studying in the College.2.While the first writ petition challenges the directive issued by the first respondent University, dated 23.08.2011 and seeks to set aside the same, the other four writ petitions are filed seeking to enforce the said order of the University which was rendered in favour of those four students. In view of the inter-connectivity between these writ petitions, they were grouped together for disposal.3.The writ petition filed by the Engineering College was admitted on 7.9.2011. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted only notice on the said petition. In the meanwhile, as the four students were not being admitted by the college in their respective semesters, they have moved the Court with four writ petitions. In those four writ petitions, notices were ordered and t...
Linga Pandi Marthandan Vs. the State Rep by
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.2. This revision has been preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order, dated 15.11.2010 made in Cr.M.P.No.2425 of 2010 in C.C.No.357 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was filed in the case in C.C.No.357 of 2009 under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C, seeking a direction against the respondent police to conduct further investigation and to file charge sheet against the accused. As per the impugned order, the Court below has dismissed the application, aggrieved by which, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner / defacto-complainant.4. It is seen from the material papers that the petitioner / defacto- complainant had filed complaint against one Chandrapanika marthandan, Ananthajothi, Stainis...
State Rep by Vs. K.P. Jai Xavier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. The petition filed by the respondents/accused 1 to 3 for discharging them from the case in brief is as follows:1.(a) The petitioners 1 to 3 are the accused 1 to 3, were working as Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively in the Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation during the relevant period to this case and one Tr.R.Raghunathan, who was working as City Engineer in the said Corporation who is in superior rank to the Executive Engineer and his subordinates in the Said Corporation, He is the head of the Engineering Section in the said Corporation.1.(b) In the police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli had levelled charges for the offences under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. against all the eight accused and a charge for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A3, that All the charges levell...
State by Inspector of Police Vs. K.N.Nehru
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-2011
1. In every arrest there is custody, but not vice versa. Whether in every formal arrest there is custody, as embodied in Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is the interesting issue involved in this Criminal Original Petition.2. The respondents herein are the accused in Crime No.27 of 2011, on the file of the Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, City Crime Branch, Trichy, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 365, 307, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of PPDL Act. Apart from the same, they have been arrayed as accused in two other cases, in Crime Nos.24 of 2011 and 26 of 2011, on the file of the very same police. In the cases, in Crime Nos.24 of 2011 and 26 of 2011, the respondents were arrested and on the orders of remand passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy, they were detained in the prisons in Cuddalore, Palayamkottai and Salem, respectively.3. While so, in connection with Crime No.27 of 2011...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »