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.
Ponnumani Nadar Vs. N.Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. This Second Appeal is filed by the 1st Defendant against the Judgement and Decree dated 12.08.2005 passed in AS.No.177/2004 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the Judgement and Decree passed in respect of "b" relief and reversing the Judgement and Decree passed in respect of "a" relief in the suit in OS.No.417/2000 dated 23.03.2000 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil.2. The case of the Plaintiff/1st Respondent herein, as set out in the plaint, is as follows:-a. The plaint A, B, C schedule properties originally belonged to one Thangaiah Nadar. He and his brother inherited the same from his father Alagumuthu Nadar. Thangaiah Nadar had three sons, namely, Narayanaperumal, who is the father of the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant and Ramaiah Nadar. The said Ramaiah Nadar had two wives by name Chellammal and Thangalakshmi and through his first wife Chellammal, he had one daughter by name Thangapaul and through his sec...
S.Duraisamy Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. The petitioner claims to be the Dharmakartha of Sri Poondiyappachi Temple and Sri Nachimar Temple situated at Kidaram Village, Thottiyam taluk, Trichy District has filed the present Writ petition.2.In this Writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents from initiating any coercive steps from removing those two temples situated in Survey No.194 in Kidaram Village, Thottiyam taluk, Trichy District without following due process.3.Notice of motion was ordered on 12.01.2011. Pending the notice of motion, this Court granted an interim injunction till 09.02.2011. Subsequently, by an order dated 09.02.2011, the interim injunction was extended until further orders.4.On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the temples in question situated in Kattuputhur to Mohanur main Road and many mini buses are running in addition to sugar cane lorries and hundred of tractors and bullock carts and ...
Sigappiammal Vs. Natarajan Poosari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 13.3.2009, made in I.A.No.276 of 2007, in the unnumbered appeal suit, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.2. It has been stated that the petitioner in the civil revision petition had filed a suit, in O.S.No.97 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, for recovery of money, based on a promissory note. The said suit had been dismissed by the trial Court, on 25.10.2004. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 25.10.2004, the petitioner herein had filed an appeal suit before the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai, with the delay of 779 days in preferring the said appeal.3. It has been stated that the petitioner, who is 72 years old, was under going treatment for arthritis and knee pain from a local doctor and therefore, she could not approach her advocate in time, to prefer the appeal. Though she had applied for a copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, da...
Muthumalai Alias Pappa Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. It is the case of the petitioner that she has send a representation to the first respondent, the District Collector, dated 07.10.2010. A copy of which is found enclosed in page numbers 7 to 9 of the typeset and the acknowledgement receipt from the first respondent is also produced in page number 10. The complaint made by the petitioner was that they were earlier worked in a tea estate and subsequently after the retirement, they were living in Azhakiyapandiapuram Village. They have two children with her. With the hard earned money, they have purchased 3.76 acres of punja land in the village and doing agricultural work.2. Six months before the date of complaint, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have approached her husband, who is a alcoholic and using his weakness they have got 1.60 acres sold by him and it was registered in the Sub Registrar office without any once knowledge. Even while registering the sale deed, the have included 21 cents extra and paid only Rs.3,00,000/- and when the pe...
S.Vasantha Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. The two writ petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.14134 and 14135 of 2010 have challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of the HR & CE, dated 18.10.2010. By the impugned order, the Commissioner informed that the Arulmigu Sankara Rameshwarar Temple, Tuticorin situated in Tuticorin Corporation area in respect of S.No.4796/1 to the extent of 28.60 cents and 31.60 cents vacant land was given for auction on 27.07.2010 and the two petitioners are the highest bidders in the said auction. For the purpose of calling for tenderers, an advertisement was given the daily newspaper, 'Dinapumi'. But consequent upon auction, there were number of complaints received by the Department and there were others who were willing to bid for higher amount in respect of the said properties and if public auction is once again ordered, there were a possibility of the temple getting higher income and therefore, these factors were brought to the Commissioner's notice by the Joint Commissioner vide his commun...
Manokaran Vs. Kathiresan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 29.12.2008, made in I.A.No.610 o f 2008, in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.2. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition are the plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.169 of 2004. The petitioners had filed the said suit on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant in the said suit, who is the respondent herein, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.3. The petitioners had filed the suit, on 30.4.2004. The respondent herein has filed the written statements, on 30.1.2006 and 24.9.2007. Both in the written statement, as well as in the additional written statement, it had been clearly stated that the petitioners were not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent and that the suit is not maintainable, as no pr...
V.Palanichamy Vs. the Branch Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction to disburse the educational loan to the petitioner's son Manojkumar for carrying on his academic activities by undergoing the study of B.E.(Computer Science) Sri Guru Institute of Technology, Varathaiyangarpalayam, Coimbatore District for the academic year 2011-2015. The petitioner sent a representation, dated 10.08.2011 seeking for educational loan from the respondent State Bank of India, Vangal Branch, Karur District and within a week, he filed the present writ petition seeking for direction to disburse the loan.2.On notice from this Court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 10.09.2011. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the bank is received the letter dated 11.08.2011 from the petitioner's son, no other particulars were furnished and the application for loan was not submitted in terms of the required form. Therefore, they are unable to process the petitioner's request. Apart from that in...
Noorul Islam Centre for Higher Education (Deemed University). Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. The petitioner is a deemed university declared under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act as deemed to be University. Curiously in this writ petition, the petitioner does not seek for any direction in respect of any regulation or orders passed by the University Grants Commission. On the contrary, they want to become a member of the second respondent Association. Therefore, they filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 22.09.2010 issued by the second respondent. By the impugned order, the second respondent informed the petitioner institution that their membership for any university is upon only after their standing for five years and it must be registered as university under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act. Therefore, the petitioner society was informed that they do not meet the criteria for granting provisional membership of the said association. However, it was informed that the students of the petitioner university are entitled to partici...
M.Antony Alex Ravi Vs. Anton Porselvi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. Challenge is made in this appeal to the order of dismissal, dated 30.01.2009 and made in I.D.O.P.No.3 of 2004, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.2. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the original petition, whereas, the respondents herein are the respondents herein.3. The second respondent is said to be the paramour of the first respondent, with whom the first respondent is alleged to have been leading a adulterous life. The appellant herein has filed a petition in I.D.O.P.No.3 of 2004, under Section 10(1)(i)(ix) of the Indian Divorce Act, seeking the relief of dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the first respondent solemnized on 05.07.2007 at Alagappapuram Street Antony's Church. It is also admitted fact that both the appellant and first respondent lived at Thoothukudi as husband and wife. Their marital relationship started to erode when the first respondent began to handover her salary to her parents. It is obvious to note here t...
A.Chandra Prakash Vs. the Chairman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
1. The petitioner was an allottee of a plot in Madurai Elis Nagar in H.486. The petitioner did not pay the entire amount due and payable towards the allotment of the plot.2.With reference to the fixation of the amount by the allottee, there was a litigation and finally when the allottees challenged the enhanced demand made by the Housing Board, the matter was heard by this Court in W.P.No.12252 of 2001, this Court held that the Housing Board is entitled to enhance the amount depending upon the compensation to be paid to the land owners and the issue also decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a S.L.P. filed by the State. Therefore, after the disposal of the said writ petition in W.P.No.12252 of 2001, dated 02.07.2009, the respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board informed the petitioner that they should pay a sum of Rs.1,68,410/- on or before 31.08.2010. It is only on such payment no objection certificate will be given and after getting the same, he can get the sale deed registered in his n...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »