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.
Latha Ramajeyam Vs. Home Secretary, Home Department
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking to set at liberty the alleged detenus, by name 1.K.N.Nehru 2. K.N.Ramajeyam and 3.M.Anbazhagan, who, according to the petitioner, were illegally detained in Cuddalore, Palayamkottai and Salem prisons, respectively. 2. According to the petitioner, the detenus were earlier arrested in connection with the cases, in Crime Nos.24 of 2011 and 26 of 2011, and in pursuance of the remand orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, they were lodged in Cuddalore, Palayamkottai and Salem prisons, respectively. 3. While so, their involvement 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, came to light. Therefore, the Investigating Officer in the said case, effected formal arrest of the detenus, on 03.10.2011. Thereafter, on 04.10.2011, the respondent police made a req...
Vasantha Vs. Ramar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 4.2.2009, made in I.A.No.87 of 2008, in A.S.No.30 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar.2. The petitioner in the present civil revision petition, who is the appellant in the appeal, in A.S.No.30 of 2008, had filed an interlocutory application, under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in I.A.No.87 of 2008, praying for the withdrawal of the suit, in O.S.No.250 of 2001, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar, with liberty to file a fresh suit, with a proper description of the suit property.3. The petitioner had filed the suit, in O.S.No.250 of 2001, for declaration of title and for injunction, in respect of the suit property. The petitioner had stated that she would wish to withdraw the suit, as the measurements, extent and the boundaries of the suit property had not been given correctly. The respondent herein had objected to the request made by the petitioner s...
Ganesan Vs. Kayalvizhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original 3rd defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2010, passed in A.S.No.5 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Sivagangai in confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009, passed in O.S.No.3 of 2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.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 summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.07.2006 and for consequential reliefs. Initially two defendants were arrayed and subsequently the third defendant/appellant, who is the third party purchaser, pendente lite was also added.4. All the three defendants separately filed their respective written statements, resisting the suit.5. Wh...
JustIn Xavier Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, seeking for a direction to allot one shop to the petitioners, constructed in S.No.761 coming under the Kanyakumari Town Panchayat, under the control of the second respondent.2. When the matter came up on 02.11.2011, the counsel originally appearing for the petitioners stated that he is no longer appearing for the petitioners, as the petitioners were taken away the bundle along with the change of vakalat. Since no new counsel has been nominated, this Court directed the name of the petitioner to be printed in the cause list. Accordingly, the name of the first writ petitioner is printed in the cause-list.3.On notice from this Court, the second respondent appears through counsel and on behalf of the first respondent Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice.4.The grievance of the petitioners was that originally they were payment vendor and they were evicted to clear the space for the tourists in Kanyakumari To...
S. Sathishkumar, Proprietor and Others Vs. R. Natarajan and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of Respondents side and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) COMMON ORDER A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A. No. 467/2009 Opposite party is the appellant. Complainants are the Respondents. The Opposite party aggrieved by the order of the District Forum come forward with this appeal claiming to set aside the order of the District Forum. F.A.No.515/2010 The unsatisfied complainants are the appellants claiming enhancement of award as per the prayers made in the complaint. 2. The complainant participated the tour arranged by the opposite party by paying Rs.10,000/- as advance on 12.4.06 for the entire cost o rs.18,500/-. For the proposed tour to Agra, Delhi, Simla, Kulumanali and Amritsar and other places by starting from 14.5.06 which was subsequently postponed to 21.5.06 on which date from Sale...
G.Poosathurai Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. The petitioner is before this Court for the second round. Earlier, he filed a writ petition being W.P.(MD)No.5089 of 2009 before this Court seeking for a direction to dispose of his representation, dated 30.06.2009. This Court without going into the merits of the case, directed the petitioner's representation to be considered. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner cannot get fishing rights in the village tank under the control of Sankarankoil Panchayat Union. Since fishing rights was not given to the fishing farmers development agency, the petitioner's request for renewal of the fishing rights cannot be granted. By order dated 25.08.2009, the third respondent panchayat union informed the second respondent that only a sum of Rs.6118/- has been granted by this agency to the panchayt union for the lease hold right and therefore, the panchayat union decided to bring the fishing rights by public auction so that the revenue of the panchaya...
S.Gokila Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction, against the respondents 1 to 4, to produce the body of the petitioner's husband Saravanakumar, aged about 23 years and set him at liberty.2.The case of the petitioner in brief would be as follows: The petitioner belonging to Pallar community, comes under the scheduled caste and the detenu Saravanakumar is also a resident of the petitioner's village, but belong to Vellalar community. The detenu was willing to marry the petitioner since both of them loved each other and therefore, both of them went to Coimbatore, where the detenu joined as a Supervisor in a private farm and they got their marriage registered on 19.11.2010 and the certificate of register of marriage is also obtained.3.The further case of the petitioner would be that the detenu's father viz., Sekar, mother Manimegalai and Uncles Ganesan, Seeni and Subramaniam came to the house, where the petitioner and her husband were living at Coimb...
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. T.Govindaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. The writ petition is filed by the Indian Overseas Bank, represents by its Branch Manager N.Paraipatti Branch, Vedachendur Taluk. Curiously, in this writ petition, the petitioner Bank challenges an order passed by the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum-Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act, Dindigul, dated 28.01.2010.2. In this writ petition, Notice of Motion was ordered on 21.01.2011. Pending the Notice of Motion, no interim orders have been granted. It is seen from the records that the first respondent herein and the other workers numbering 297, who were employees of the second respondent Spinning Mill at N.Paraipatti, Dindigul District, filed gratuity applications, claiming gratuity. It is seen that the Mill had employed around 300 workers and the Mill was closed without giving any work with effect from 04.12.1994. The workers have been demanding gratuity for the services rendered by them. Having waited patently and sending representations to variou...
V.Subramanian and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. Nine writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner. The petitioner is a assisted person assisted by Mr.K.P.Vijayakumar.2. Out of these nine writ petitions, W.P.(MD)No.5405 of 2011 is filed to quash an FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2004, dated 11.02.2004 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional insofar as the petitioner is concerned.3. In W.P.(MD).No.5406 of 2011 is concerned it is for the writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the third respondent in the writ petition, namely Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), represented by The Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI)/SPE located at Kathirkadavu, Kaloor, Kochi, Kerala State from proceeding in S.C.No.35 of 2007 on the file of Special Judge (CBI/SPE)-I, Sessions Court, Ernakulam, Kerala State, so far as the petitioner is concerned.4. W.P.(MD).No.5408 of 2011 is for a Writ in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus pertaining to the proceedings of the 7th respondent namely, Indian Bank represented by The General Manager (CR), ...
S.Santhanalakshmi Vs. G.Siva
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. The petitioners in both the petitions are husband and wife. Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.216 of 2011 has been filed by the wife Mrs.S.Santhanalakshmi seeking relief of withdrawal of H.M.O.P.SR.No.1088 of 2010 from the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Trichy and transfer to the file of the Family Court at Madurai to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.317 of 2011, whereas the husband Mr.G.Siva has filed Tr.C.M.P.No.259 of 2011 seeking the relief of withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.317 of 2011 from the file of the Family Court, Madurai and transfer to the file of the Principal Sub Court, Trichy to be tried along with H.M.O.P.SR.No.1088 of 2010.2. When these two petitions came up for hearing, Mr.T.K.Balasubramanian, learned Counsel for the wife has submitted that these two petitions may be ordered to be transferred to the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Madurai to be tried and dispose simaltaneously in accordance with law.3. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »