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.
S.Paramasivam Vs. Ms.Anila Exports by Partner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 10.9.2009, made in I.A.No.272 of 2009, in O.S.No.525 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.2. The petitioner is the proposed second plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.525 of 2008. The respondents in the present civil revision petition are the defendants in the said suit. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff, namely, Karuppayee Ammal, who had died subsequently, praying for a decree of declaration, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, during her life time. The petitioner, had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.272 of 2009, stating that he is entitled to the suit schedule properties, by way of a Will, said to have been executed by Karuppayee Ammal.3. The trial Court had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner stating that the suit had become infructuous, due to the death of the plainti...
Ponram Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the detention order, dated 22.7.2011, passed by the second respondent. in Crl.M.P.No.17/ 2011 (Goonda) and quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Senthilkumar, son of the petitioner, aged about 29 years, detained in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty, forthwith.2. The second respondent has passed the detention order, dated 22.7.2011, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, (Tamilnadu Act No.14/1982), read with the order issued by the State government, in G.O.(D).No.153, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of th...
Subaitha Kathoon Vs. the Additional Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu-Babu @ Sathick Basha, aged about 40 years, who has been detained in the Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli, by the order of the third respondent, C.P.O./TRC/B.M./D.O.No.08/2011, dated 09.08.2011, under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Challenging the detention order, the petitioner is before this Court, by way of the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2.Even though a number of grounds have been raised in the present Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the detention order passed by the detaining authority, on 09.08.2011, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had raised the ground of delay, as the only ground, for this Court to set aside the detention order, dated 09.08.2011.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation, on 16.08.2011, and the said representation was received by the detaining ...
M.S.Rajendran and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. In majority of these writ petitions, the petitioners who are public servants were accused of taking bribes, caught red-handed in traps and are facing charges before the Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When they were placed under suspension by the competent authority, they have come to this court challenging the orders of suspension. In two cases, interim stay of suspension have been granted. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of their contentions, it is necessary to set the tone for dealing with the cases of public servants involved in corruption.2.The Supreme Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584 in paragraph 12 had observed as follows: 12.Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly function...
Sahaya Nageswari Vs. the Additional Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu-Stephenraj, aged about 36 years, who has been detained by the order of the third respondent in No.09/2011 (CS) dated 08.08.2011, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, branding him as "Black Marketeer". Seeking to quash the said detention order, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2.The detention order was passed on 08.08.2011. The detenu made a representation dated 10.08.2011 and the same was received by the Government on 16.08.2011, remarks were called for on 17.08.2011, but the remarks were submitted to the District Collector only on 30.08.2011. As per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the said representation of the detenu was never considered by the Government and there was no order passed.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the sole g...
S.Parvathavarthini Vs. K.Uthiram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 9.7.2009, made in I.A.No.5 of 2007, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani.2. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition are the respondents, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000. R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000 had been filed by the respondent herein for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of willful default.3. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.5 of 2007, in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2000, requesting the District Munsif Court, Palani, to send for the documents, marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-142, marked in O.S.No.258 of 1999, pending on the file of the said Court.4. The suit, in O.S.No.258 of 1999, had been filed by the petitioners, for declaration of title and for injunction against the respondent, claiming that the petitioners had perfected their title, in respect of the suit schedule property, by way of adverse possession. However, the trial Court had rejected t...
St.Thomas Matriculation Higher Secondary School. Vs. the Director of M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. The petitioner is running a Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Kodaikanal. In this Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge a notice issued by the first respondent, the Director of Matriculation School, dated 01.03.2010. The show cause notice found several defects with reference to the school building, viz., the space required, the requirement of play ground, number of toilets being inadequate proportionate to the students strength, the need for expanding the laboratories and the School also do not own the entire extent of land and they have only produced a lease for ten years from the land owner. However, the original title deed as well as lease for a period of 30 years were also not produced before the authorities and there was a complaint that it is running as a teaching shop collecting money excessively and the details of the qualified teachers working in the school were also not mentioned. Therefore, under the provisions of the Code of Regulations for Matriculat...
Rani Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu-Suresh @ Sureshkumar, who has been detained by the order of the second respondent, in P.D.No.15/2011 dated 08.07.2011, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as GOONDA. Seeking to quash the said detention order, the petitioner has come up before this Court with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2.In this case, as against the detention order, the detenu submitted a representation dated 27.07.2011, which was received by the Government on 01.08.2011. The remarks were called for by the Government from the detaining authority on 02.08.2011, but the remarks were received by the Government only on 23.08.2011. Thereafter, the rejection order was passed on 29.08.2011 by the Government.3.With the above admitted facts, the learned counse...
Perumal Vs. Alagammal Alias Pappathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007 made in A.S.No.93 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamudram, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 made in O.S.No.276 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiff - Perumal, filed the suit for declaration of his title over the suit property and for recovery of possession based on the registered Will dated 15.02.1990 executed by the testator - Lakshmiammal.4. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the said Will relied on by the plaintiff is not a genuine one and the defendant's husband Krishnasamy happened to be the broth...
Arumozhi and ors. Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co Operative Societies an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2011
1. The first petitioner is working as salesman in the Thanjavur Agricultural Producer Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Thanjavur. The second petitioner is working as clerk in the Thanjavur District Educational Employee's Co- operative Thrift and Credit Society, Thanjavur and third petitioner is working as salesman in the Thanjavur Agricultural Producer Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Thanjavur.2.In the first writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner was that the fourth respondent co-operative society (wrongly shows as fifth respondent) to absorb by treating him as surplus employee of the third respondent society namely, Enam Arulmozhipettai tenant Co-operative Farming Society Ltd., Thanjavur which has in liquidation (as per the circular issued by the joint Registrar of co-operative societies dated 14.12.2009)3.The second writ petition which is for a direction directing the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to fix time scale of pay in the light of the circular dated 21.08.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »