Chennai Court December 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.
Southern Alloy Foundries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
Challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/N/AEE/Dev/AE/D2/F HT 1100/D 707/11 dated 24.09.2011, praying to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to sanction additional demand of 250 KVA over and above the existing demand of 1,200 KVA for the petitioner's HTSC No.1100 without insisting on shifting the HT metering point to a distance within 30 metres from their factory's main gate, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner their Foundry, which was formally inaugurated nearly five decades ago is situated on 8.34 acres of land on G.N.T. Road, wherein, two 11 KVA and one 33 KVA overhead lines pass through their lands and hence, they are unable to put up any construction in the said area as per the Regulations. Electricity supply to the petitioner's factory is drawn from the 11 KVA line. Even at the time of commissioning of the factory, taking into account their future needs, the petitioner installed the electrica...
S.Girinivasa Prasad Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The petitioner, who is a practising Advocate at Nagercoil, has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a Mandamus, to direct the respondents to provide police protection for his life. 2. I have heard Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The petitioner is an Advocate practising in Nagercoil for the past 10 years. According to him, he is running an organisation known as “Free Legal Aid Centre for Human Rights Violation”. It is claimed by the petitioner that he has taken up the cause of many persons who suffered at the hands of the police and got reliefs for them. In the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that on behalf of his clients, he has prosecuted several Police Officers and a former Minister, for various offences and violation of human rights. The credentials of the petitioner, if they can be called so, narrated by him in more than abo...
K.Avanasiappan Vs. the Management of thekkalur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
This writ appeal is directed against the order allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent co-operative Bank. The question to be decided in the writ appeal is as to whether the Secretary of Thekkalur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank is an 'employee' within the definition of Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981? 2. The facts in brief required for consideration of the issue are as follows. The appellant was employed as the Secretary of the first respondent co-operative Bank with effect from 30.10.70. He was suspended for certain acts of misconduct like misappropriation of members money by forging their signature, forging the documents with a view to give increase in the salary to his wife, abusing and threatening the Director and staff members of the co-operative Bank with effect from 9.1.98. He was paid the subsistence allowance at the rate of 25% of his wages in terms of the bye-law 12(c) of the society. However, the appellant fil...
Balusamy Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 29.6.2011, made in Crl.M.P.No.04/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Prabhu alias Prabhukumar, Son of Balusamy, aged about 27 years, confined in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the father of the detenu. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No.73, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.4.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in his procee...
Chokki Vs. the Secretary to Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
(The Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 29.08.2011, made in Detention Order No.02/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenue, namely, G.Lakshmi, W/o.Late Gandhi, aged 51 years, confined in the Special Prison for Women, Trichy, before this Court and to set her at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, dated 29.08.2011, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 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), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No.149, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the deten...
Rathinam Alias Rathinakumar Vs. the Secretary to Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 21.9.2011, made in C.M.P.No.26 of 2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Rathinam @ Rathinakumar, aged about 40 years, confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, dated 21.9.2011, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 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), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D)No.153, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing his detention, in the Central Prison, Madurai, terming him as a 'Goonda'....
D.Pugazhendhi Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
The Appellant, who is the sole accused in CC.No.39/2009, has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgement dated 19.07.2011 passed by the learned XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil court, Chennai, convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence, in default to undergo to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:- a. PW.2 L.P.Shanumugasundaram is an Advocate, practising at High Court Premises, Chennai dealing with the cases of motor accidents and other cases and PW.5 V.P.Balaji is his Junior Advocate. A case in MCOP.NO.71/2006 was filed, claiming compensation on behalf of one Mayakrishnan before the Court of Small Causes, Chennai and the said case was settled in the Lok Adalat fo...
Pechiammal Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
(The Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J) This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 20.9.2011, made in Cr.M.P.No.25/2011, (GOONDA) and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Kavaski @ Kavaskar, Son of Annadurai, aged about 26 years, confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No.153, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in his proceedings Cr.M.P....
A.Muralidharan Vs. the Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the order of the 1st respondent herein in Proceedings Rc.No.8788/AP.3(3)/08, dated 11.06.2008, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in Proceedings Rc.No.PR.II(S)/Appeal.31/2007, dated 24.12.2007 and confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in PR.No.91/PR.II(S)/05, dated 02.11.2007, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay etc. 3. Facts of the case as put forth by the petitioner in the affidavit, run thus: 3.1. The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Constable in the Police Subordinate Services on 25.10.1984. Thereafter, he was promoted as Grade I Constable in 1996. On 06.10.2000, he received a...
P.Pandiveeran and ors. Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
These three writ petitions were the fall out of the earlier writ petitions filed before this Court by the members of Thirumalapuram Nadars Uravinmurai Sangam. The first writ petition (W.P.(MD)No.3610 of 2006) herein was filed by one Pandiveeran seeking to challenge the order dated 30.09.2004 passed by the second respondent and for a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders after holding an enquiry into the affairs of Thirumalapuram Nadars Uravinmurai Society with registration No.177/98 to ensure the society being administered in accordance with bylaws as well as the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The writ petition was admitted on 24.4.2006. Pending the writ petition, no interim order was granted. On notice, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 19.06.2006. 2.W.P.(MD)No.8249 of 2006 was filed by one Mariappan seeking for a direction to the first respondent to consider his representation dated 14.5.2006 and to take ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »