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.
Padmavathi Vs. Chellathai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original Plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2011, passed in A.S.No.7 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli in reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007, passed in O.S.No.7 of 2005 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil.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 - Padmavathy filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the main ground that she inherited the property from her father Antony S/o. Kovilpillai.4. The defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement contending that they purchased the property from K.S.Antony, who was the real owner and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the purchase and pray...
Murugan Vs. State Rep. by
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. This revision challenges the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No.68 of 2009 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram.2. The case of prosecution may tersely be stated as follows:2.(a) Revision Petitioner/P.W.1 is son of deceased Rani. P.W.2 is sisterr of P.W.1. P.W.1 laid a complaint Ex.P.1 with the 1st respondent police on 3.9.2008 at about 1.30 a.m., stating that the second accused picked up quarrel with Rani with regard to the grassing of cattle, that on 2.9.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. the goat belonging to P.W.1 went into the house of 2nd accused and the daughter of Nagalakshmi by name Malathi exaggerated the event and 2nd accused shouted and hence the deceased asked 2nd accused why should she shout like that, that at that time 1st and 3rd accused also came and the first accused by stating that through out the year the deceased was disturbing them, cut on the head of deceased by means of Vangaruval, that both 2nd and 3rd accused assaulted Rani by ...
thenkumari Educational Society Vs. the Principal Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. The petitioner is an educational agency. In this Writ petition he has challenged an order passed by the 3rd respondent namely, the Local Planning Authority, Nagercoil in demanding a sum of Rs.2,86,375/- being the balance amount payable in terms of the infrastructure development charges levied under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act under Section 56 as amended by the Amendment Act 2008. It was stated that if the amount is not paid, the premises will be sealed. 2.The contention of the petitioner was that the order was illegal and it is erroneous interpretation of the Government orders. It is also passed without application of mind. Similar contentions raised by various other educational agencies including real estate promoters and business houses came to be dismissed in a batch of Writ petitions by this Court vide judgment in W.P.No.21402 of 2008 etc. batch case dated 30.06.2011 (Sundaram Auto Components Limited and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others). A subse...
Karupayee Alias Vellaithayee Ammal. Vs. Kathariya Tharka Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. The Appellant / Defendant have preferred this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.06.2005, in A.S.No. 167 of 2004 passed by the Learned 3rd Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, in affirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.04.2004, in O.S.No. 526 of 1995, passed by the Learned Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai.The Plaint averments:2. According to the Respondent/Plaintiff, its a Muslim Public Religious and Charitable Trust. Many persons have endowed the properties to the Trust. The properties belonging to the Respondent /Plaintiff, including the suit scheduled property bearing S.No. 90/1 has been surveyed by the Commissioner of Wakfs as per Section 4(3) of the Wakf Act.3. The Government of Tamil Nadu has forwarded the said survey report to the State of Wakf Board and the Board published the Respondent/Plaintiff's Trust in Official Gazette, dated 27.05.1969 in serial No. 98 and 115 of the Gazette. As per Section 6 of the Wakf Act, the character and nature of ...
P.Jeyakodi Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the production of his son by name Ganeshkumar, aged about 19 years, before this Court and set him at liberty, alleging that the detenu is under the illegal custody of the third respondent.2.Today, the detenu-Ganeshkumar, aged about 19 years, has been produced by the second respondent-Police before us. On enquiry, we understand that the detenu was not under illegal detention of anyone, much less the third respondent. The detenu has stated that he would like to go along with his father/the petitioner herein. However, the petitioner is not present before this Court.3.On his version, we find that he is not under the illegal custody of anyone, much less the third respondent. Therefore, the detenu-Ganeshkumar is set at liberty to go according to his wish.4.Learned counsel for the third respondent would submit in his argument that the victim girl is present and a complaint has been given by the third respondent agains...
Muthukutti Vs. the Deputy Director and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the first respondent Deputy Director, D.N.A. Section, Forensic Science Department, Chennai, to issue the FTA Card forthwith to conduct DNA Test for the petitioner, defacto complainant and her child in Crime No.1 of 2010 on the file of the second respondent Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Valliyur, Tirunelveli District within the stipulated time and subsequently to direct the second respondent to take necessary steps to conduct the DNA test on receipt of the FTA Card in accordance with law.2.When this writ petition came up on 19.1.2011, this court directed the petitioner to implead the defacto complainant. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an application in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011, which was ordered by this court today (02.11.2011). In the writ petition, notice was ordered to the parties.3.The facts leading to filing of the case are as follows: The impleaded third respondent Nagavalli, daughter of Annad...
Sudalaimuthu Vs. Meenakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 6.4.2009, made in I.A.No.19 of 2007, in O.S.No.16 of 2001, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.2. By an order, dated 6.4.2009, the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur, had allowed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.19 of 2007, filed by the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.16 of 2001. The respondent had filed the suit, in O.S.No.16 of 2001, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur, praying for a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and to consequently, direct the defendants in the said suit, the petitioners herein, to hand over vacant possession of the said property. The said suit had been dismissed for default, on 2.7.2002, due to the non-appearance of the counsel, who was appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff in the suit, who is the respondent...
R.Ramasamy Vs. the Principal Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2011
1. The petitioner appears in person. In this writ petition, he has made an innocuous prayer to consider his representations, dated 3.6.2009 and 11.4.2011. In the representation, dated 3.6.2009, the petitioner has issued a notice describing himself as an Advocate of the High Court and also a person who has been invited by the University as a guest lecturer for certain topics. He has stated that he came to know that in the EMMRC Department, the posts of Producer, Assistant Engineers and Production Assistants are treated as academic posts and that a resolution to that effect had been passed by the Syndicate on 23.3.2009. It is only the University Grants Commission can treat the technical staff as academic staff. Otherwise, it will be wasting the funds of the UGC. The Syndicate of the University has no power to treat certain posts as academic posts. It is only the posts of Director and Assistant Librarian can be treated as academic post. Therefore, he had requested the University to cancel...
U.Gregory Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2011 made in A.S.No.124 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2010 made in O.S.No.39 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.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, avoiding discursive delineation, of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the second appeal, would run thus:The plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs: A. The 1st defendant be directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to remove the construction blocking the use of the suit property as pathway be removed by itself and in case of failure it may be done through court in execution.B. The defendants 2 and 3 be...
Ms.Providence Protection and Detectives. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. The petitioner described himself as a Providence Protection and Detectives represented by its Manager has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the third respondent BSNL to implement the revised minimum wages fixed by the second respondent to settle the payment of arrears and leave relief payment together with service charges and service tax applicable as per DGR guidelines with interest.2.Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to state the nature of the constitution of the petitioner. In the affidavit, there is no description of the petitioner and in the typed set also there is no certificate showing the correct status of the petitioner and on the short ground the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.3.In any event, when the matter came up on 05.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered. On notice from this Court, the third respondent filed a counter affidavit. In the counter counter, it was stated that it is a matter of contract betwee...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »