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.
O.Velsamy Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. The petitioner is the father of one Jansirani, aged 25 years. According to him, Jansirani is found missing from 10.07.2011. In this regard, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the second respondent-Police, on which , a case has been registered in Crime No.373 of 2011 for "girl missing" and the investigation is in progress. Since the whereabouts of the girl could not be located by the second respondent-Police, the petitioner has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2.The second respondent has filed a Status Report dated 25.10.2011, wherein he has stated that, from the investigation, it came to light that one Boothathan @ Raja is also missing from the village and it appears to have been a case of elopement of the detenue along with the said Raja. Now the missing girl is aged more than 25 years.3.In view of the fact that the investigation is going on in the right direction and from the Status Report, it appears that it is a case of elopement and not a c...
S.Muppidathi Vs. the Chief Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 6 from installing the High Tension Wire Poles and windmills within 30 meters of the petitioner's agricultural land in Kaluneerkulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.2. I have heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Alagarthevan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5, Mr.G.Kasinathadurai, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 6 and Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the seventh respondent.3. The petitioner is the owner of the agricultural lands in Survey No. 75/7A, 75/7B, 75/7C and 75/7D, measuring an extent of about 2 acres in Kaluneerkulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The seventh respondent purchased adjoining land of an extent of 2 acres in Survey No. 75/8 and 75/8B for the purpose of erecting a windmill. After the seventh respondent started erecting the windmill, the petitione...
P.Udhayakumar Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. H.C.P.(MD)No.147 of 2011 had been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's daughter, namely, U.Madhubala, aged about 18 years, before this Court and to set her at liberty. The petitioner has stated that the detenue is under the illegal custody of the second and the third respondents herein.2. H.C.P.(MD)No.328 of 2011 has been filed by K.Radhamani, the second respondent in H.C.P.(MD)No.147 of 2011, stating that her son, namely, K.Karthick, the third respondent in H.C.P.(MD)No.147 of 2011, is missing.3. From the common Status Report filed by the first respondent dated 23.08.2011, it is seen that the detenue U.Madhubala had married, K.Karthick, the third respondent, in H.C.P.(MD)No.147 of 2011, and they are living in Bangalore, Karnataka State. It has also been stated that K.Radhamani, who is the mother of K.Karthick, is also living with them. She had been summoned by the first respondent-Police and she had given a statement, o...
Pandian Tractors Vs. the District Consumer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. This writ petition being W.P.(MD).No.1983 of 2008 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11225 of 2011 came to be posted before this Court being 'specially ordered'.2. While the writ petition is filed by one Pandian Tractors represented by its partner and others who are the partners of the firm, the criminal original petition is filed by the third respondent in the writ petition.3. In the writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is to set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressel Forum, Theni District, in C.C.No.165 of 2008.4. By the said proceedings, the contesting third respondent approached the first respondent, the District Consumer Dispute Redressel Forum, Periyakulam seeking for a direction to refund the deposit amount of Rs.1,58,000/- and also to provide interest for the delayed return and for the purpose of mental agony demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- and for the suit costs a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The consumer forum issued a notice to the petitioners to file a reply on th...
N.Abdul Bazeer Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. (Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The petitioner is the father of one Parveen Begam, aged 18 years. Alleging that the third respondent has kidnapped Parveen Begam, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the second respondent on which, a case has been registered in Crime No.47 of 2011 under Section 366(A) of IPC. Since the girl could not be found out by the second respondent, the petitioner has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2.When this H.C.P. came up today morning, this Court admitted the same and ordered notice to the respondents 3 to 5 and also directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take notice on behalf of the first and second respondents. By about 12.00 noon, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the second respondent had secured the girl and she would be produced before this Court. Accordingly, after due intimation to the counsel for the petitioner, the matter is now taken up.3.The petitioner as well as his wife,...
S.Sornarajan Vs. Chellappandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 07.10.2009, made in I.A.No.66 of 2009, in O.S.No.20 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram.2. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition are the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.20 of 2007. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. The suit had been filed by the respondent praying for a decree of specific performance, based on the agreement for sale, dated 20.11.2006. During the pendency of the suit, in O.S.No.20 of 2007, the petitioners have filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.66 of 2009, praying for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to submit a report regarding the valuation of the land and the building, which is the subject matter of the suit, in O.S.No.20 of 2007. The trial Court had rejected the request of the petitioner, by its order, dated 7.10.2009, stating that the appointment of an advocate commissioner cannot be permitted in a suit for...
Agnes Vs. RawlIn Thomas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendants animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2008, passed in A.S.No.3 of 2006 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2005, passed in O.S.No.417 of 2004 by the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur.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 absolutely necessary for the disposal of the Second Appeal would run thus: The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title over the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same as against the defendants, who are the mother and son, mainly on the ground that the defendants were tenants under the plaintiffs and based on that earlier rent control proceedings were initiated, but it ended in a fiasco, thereafter, the plaintiffs did choose to...
T.M.Srinivasan Vs. the Chief Educational Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. Heard Mr.R.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr.Ts.Md.Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader, for the official respondents and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.V.Paneerselvam, appearing for the third and fourth respondents .2. The first writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the Secretary and Correspondent of the ER Higher Secondary School, Trichirapalli challenging the notice issued by the District Educational Officer, Trichirapalli dated 14.07.2011.2. By the impugned notice, the District Educational Officer informed the petitioner in the capacity of Secretary of the School that there has been several allegations made against school management. The matter had reached the hands of the first respondent i.e. the Chief Educational Officer, Trichirapalli. On examination of those complaints, he found that there were as many as 10 lapses against the School. Therefore, on the basis of the said complaint asked the pet...
Y.Florence Bai Vs. P.Yesudhas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 06.10.2009, made in I.A.No.144 of 2008, in O.S.No.111 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate-Court, Padmanabhapuram.2. The petitioner in the present the Civil Revision Petition is the defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.111 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. The suit had been filed by the respondent for recovery of money, based on a promissory note, dated 27.12.2004. The petitioner herein had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.144 of 2008, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to send certain documents, containing the signatures of the petitioner, for obtaining an expert opinion thereon after comparing the signature on the pro-note, dated 27.12.2004. However, the trial Court had rejected the request of the petitioner, by its order, dated 06.10.2009.3. At this stage of the hearing of the Civil Revision Petition, the learned...
Vadivel Vs. Chinnadurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 30.4.2009, passed by the Subordinate Court, Sankarankoil, in the unnumbered interlocutory application, in O.S.No.20 of 2005.2. The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition is the defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.20 of 2005, filed by the respondent. The respondent had filed the suit, in O.S.No.20 of 2005, for recovery of money, based on a promissory note, dated 22.3.2003, said to have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.262 of 2007, to compare the signatures in the promissory note, with the signature in the written statement and the vakalat filed in the suit. However, the trial Court had dismissed the said interlocutory application stating that such comparison cannot be made, as they are not contemporaneous documents.3. A civil revision petition, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1449 of 2008, had been filed before this Court challenging the order passed by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »