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.
Ramkumar Vs. the Commissioner of Police 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 first respondent, dated 23.07.2011, made in No.C.P.O/T.C./ I.S./D.O.No.13/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Ramkumar, son of Narayanasamy, aged about 25 years, confined in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned detention order, dated 23.07.2011, 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.121, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, direct...
The Indian Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maragatham Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
The Appellant/First Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the instant Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.10.2005 in A.S.No.74 of 2002 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Madurai in reversing and setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.2001 in O.S.No.299 of 1992 passed by the Learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, while allowing the Appeal in A.S.No.74 of 2002, on 07.10.2005 in the Judgment has inter alia held that “(i) even though the original sale deed was not deposited by the First Defendant on 11.11.1974 with Sri Ram Chits and Investments (P) Ltd., it could not be contended that no valid equitable mortgage was created and answered this point in the affirmative, (ii) that the effect of equitable mortgage created on 05.03.1990 would no way affect the title of the third Defendant to the suit property and (iii) upheld the Court auction purchase in favour ...
M/S.Sterilite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
W.P.Nos.24476 to 24478 of 2009 relate to the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee herein has come before this Court, challenging the notice of reassessment dated 19.03.2009 for the above-said assessment years issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner herein is a company and an assessee on the file of the first respondent herein. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of non-ferrous metals and telephone cables. The petitioner states that it obtained the licence for its industrial undertaking, at Chinchpada Unit (CCR Refinery) at Silvassa in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar, Haveli from the Chief Inspector of Factories of Silvassa on 07.06.1996 in Form No.4, as prescribed under the Factories Act, 1948 to manufacture copper. As is evident from the Director's report, forming part of the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the assessment year 1999-2000, the petitioner is stated to hav...
M.N.Srinivasan Vs. the Additional Director of Sugar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 31.5.2007 passed by the respondent imposing the punishment of reversion from the post of Superintendent to Assistant for three years and confer all consequential benefits. 2. Both the respondents are one and the same person. While the first respondent is impleaded in his official capacity, the second respondent is impleaded in his personal capacity. 3. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows: (a) Petitioner has joined in the services of the respondent office as Junior Assistant on 27.8.1981, promoted as Assistant in the year 1988 and further promoted as Superintendent on 13.7.2001. On 27.4.2006 he was posted in the Cane section. (b) By order dated 18.8.2006 petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that he behaved arrogantly with Junior Assistant when she wanted to close the attendance register on the forenoon of 31.7.2006 and the petitioner...
A.Seyed Hakim and ors. Vs. K.S.Maideen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
This Original Side Appeal has been arising out of the order dated 29.07.2009 made in A.No.5123 of 2008 in C.S.No.532 of 2001 and condoning the delay of 498 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree dated 19.02.2007 made in C.S.No.532 of 2001. 2. Appellants as Plaintiffs filed a suit in C.S.No.532 of 2001 praying to set aside the sale deed dated 27.01.1999 executed by the second defendant in favour of first defendant registered as document No.203 of 1999 and for a declaration that the Appellants/Plaintiffs are the original owners having absolute title to the suit property viz., Door No.32 (Old No.25A), Muniram Pandian Lane, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021 and also for permanent injunction and other consequential relief. Along with the suit, Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed application for injunction, in which, the first respondent/first defendant entered appearance. Since the first respondent/first defendant has not filed the written statement in time, the matter w...
T.Selvaraj Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
The petitioner, challenging the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore made in I.D.No.286 of 2003, by which the order of dismissal passed against him was confirmed, has come forward to file this writ petition. 2.The facts in brief are as follows: (i)The petitioner was working as a Driver in the second respondent Transport Corporation. On 10.05.1997, the petitioner drove the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 37 N 0449. The vehicle crossed Ukkadam bus stand, which is 7kms from the place of occurrence and dashed against a tamarind tree. Consequent on the accident, seven people including two children have died, 15 passengers sustained injuries and the tamarind tree was uprooted. (ii)Charges have been framed against the petitioner for the occurrence happened on 10.05.1997. A report was filed by the Assistant Engineer on 10.05.1997 indicating that the accident had occurred due to the fault of the petitioner as he was driving the vehicle at a very high speed. Since the petitioner has tried to...
M.Sundarammal and ors. Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
Facts of this case remainds of this popular Tamil film song. This is a classic case as to how responsible people acted inhumanely, illegally while dealing with the service of their own “sick employee”. It is very disheartening to note that a driver affected by “Epilepsy” was discharged from service unfairly and in a manner unknown to law consequently throwing his family with two minors to indigent circumstances. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the legal heirs of one Muniyandi, who was employed as a driver by the second respondent Transport Corporation for more than 15 years. The said Muniyandi fell ill and took treatment as an inpatient in Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and died on 18.3.1995 while he was in service. Subsequently the petitioners submitted an application for payment of service benefits from the second respondent, who paid only gratuity and provident fund and refused to pay other benefits viz, “Group insurance” an...
R.Lakshmi Narasimha Bhattar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
One Lakshmi Narasimha Bhattar is the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5943 of 2011 and in Review Application (MD)No.53 of 2011. In W.P.(MD)No.9202 of 2011, his son Senthamarai Kannan Bhattar is the petitioner. In the other two writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(MD)Nos.9263 and 9447 of 2011, both father and son have jointly filed the same. 2.Initially, the review application filed by the Lakshmi Narasimha Bhattar came up before this court with a condone delay application in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 to condone the delay of 552 days in filing the review application. In the condone delay application, notice was ordered to the respondent on 8.6.2011. Subsequently when the matter came up after notice on 23.11.2011, this court condoned the delay after an earlier notice to the standing counsel for the the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE-cum-Executive Officer, the Additional Government Pleader for the Commissioner HR&CE and for one Singaperumal Uthamanambi, S/o Sadagopa Chariyar (third respondent), for w...
R. Sankara Karuppasamy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
1. The summary of the prosecution case is as follows: 1.(a) In order to get contract in the Highways Department in the name of the father of P.W.3, his solvency certificate was required. P.W.3 got the signature of his father in the application for the said purpose and gave the same to Sippipaarai Village Administrative Officer on 14.10.98, which is Ex.P.7. He also enclosed valuation certificate given by the engineer, along with the application, for the house of his father and the property tax receipts and Encumbrance Certificate as well. Ex.P.8 is Valuation Certificate given by the Engineer. Ex.P.9 series are the property tax receipts and.P.10 is Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.11 is the solvency certificate typed on Rs.20 stamp paper in which the accused signed on 30.10.1998. The accused was working as Revenue Inspector, Elayirampannai, during the relevant point of time. Both P.W.3 and his driver by name Muthuramapandian went to Tahsildar office at Sathur on 15.10.1998 and gave the appl...
Rajbabu 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 10.09.2011, made in Detention Order No.13/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Rajbabu, son of Kittappa Naidu, aged about 33 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 10.09.2011, 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.130, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing his deten...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »