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.
Rathinasabapathi and ors. Vs. the Inspector General of Registration an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
Though these Writ petitions were covered with the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.9895 of 2005 dated 26.09.2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to contend that the order passed by this Court dated 26.09.2009 is the subject matter of the Writ Appeal. Therefore, these cases can be posted along with the Writ Appeal. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon another division bench judgment of this Court in Captain Dr.R.Bellie and another Vs. Sub Registrar, Registration Office, Sulur, Coimbatore District and others reported in 2007(3) CTC 513. This Court do not propose to send these matters to the division bench. When once the matter is covered in all respect by the order. These writ petitions were not listed at the relevant time, though they came to be filed immediately after the disposal of the Writ petition. The order passed by this Court will squarely apply. It is for the petitioners to agitate before an appellate forum rathe...
Babu Vs. Sumitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
The present Civil revision is directed against the fair and decreetal order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, dated 06.07.2010 made in I.A.No.513 of 2009 in O.S.No.46 of 2005. 2. The plaintiff in the said suit is the petitioner herein and the 7th defendant thereon is the respondent herein. The petitioner herein has laid the said suit against the respondent and seven others for specific performance of an agreement of sale. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the suit properties originally belong to one Rukmaniammal by virtue of sale deed dated 16.05.1980, executed in her favour. She entered into a sale agreement dated 23.01.2003 in favour of the petitioner. After execution of the sale deed, the said Rukmaniammal died and her legal representatives are the defendants. The respondent was the 7th defendant in the said suit. She is the grand daughter of the said Rukmaniammal born through her deceased daughter Sheela Devi and one Bhaskaran, the 8th defendant in the ...
Tmt.K.Geetha Vs. the Director of Municipal Administration and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
The petitioner was employed on daily wages in the Revenue Department from 1.4.1992 to 1995. Thereafter, from 1995 till 31.12.1997, she was employed as Section writer in the second respondent Municipality on daily rated basis as fixed by the District Collector under NRY scheme. 2. After 31.12.1997, according to her, she applied for maternity leave, since she became pregnant. After delivery of the child, she approached the second respondent for employment on 1.4.1998, but the employment was refused. Hence the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 4.12.1999 seeking employment and regularisation as per G.O.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27.5.1999. She also made representations dated 23.2.2000 and 25.6.2000 seeking for regularisation as per G.O.125, referred to above, since other NMR workers, who were working along with her, were regularised in service as per the aforesaid G.O.125. Since no reply was given, she filed O.A.No.6876 of 2001 praying for a directio...
Nirmal Gadhiya Vs. Spencer's Group Aerated And Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
Challenge in this Intra Court appeal is the order dated 1.4.2011 made in C.A.No.1165 of 2010 in C.P.No.138 of 1996, whereby the learned single Judge held that the liability of the Company can be fixed on the estate of H.Anraj including the land and building and ordered issuance of notice to the appellant as well as the other legal heirs of deceased H.Anraj to show cause as to why the liability without any limitation be not fixed on the estate of late H.Anraj for having conducted the affairs of the Company in a fraudulent manner. 2. Brief facts are that the workers of 1st respondent union - about 170 were working in Spencer Consumer Products and Services Limited and they were transferred to Aerated Water Factory at Rajakulam, Kancheepuram District and the same was later transferred to the 2nd respondent Company under liquidation. Due to the sale of Aerated Water Factory by Spencer to the 2nd respondent (Vishwadarsan Distributors Private Limited) on 10.7.1991, the 2nd respondent made an ...
V. Krishnamoorthy Vs. the National Mother Agencies, Indane Distributor ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 23.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party regarding the deficiency in service for the supply of gas cylinders and when it was booked opposite parties replied recklessly for which claiming a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and for costs. 3. Complainant having registration with the opposite party for the supply of gas cylinders as consumer, when on 6.12.06 he obtained the cylinder and for the booking of refill cylinder on 29.12.06 and contacted through the telephone with the opposite party for the registration of the same, the opposite party stated that only after the lapse of 21 days from the 1st booking for the 2nd registration to be mad...
M/S. Tamil Nadu Traders Vs. Joint Commissioner (Smr)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
These writ petitions have been filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the respondent in exercise of its suo motu power of revision, in respect of the business of the petitioner relating to circulation sales for the assessment year 1974-75 and 1975-76. Regarding the assessment year 1974-75, the Assessing Authority has passed orders on 24.06.1976, imposing tax on the turnover. On appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the same was allowed on 27.04.1977 in favour of the assess. Likewise, in respect of the assessment year 1975-1976, as against the levy of tax by the Assessing Officer on circulation sales, by order dated 15.02.1977, the appeal of the assessee filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was allowed on 27.4.1977. 2. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, there was no further right of appeal available to the revenue against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In fact, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner while pa...
Trichirappalli City Municipal Vs. Senthilkumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
This Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002, passed in A.S.No.246 of 2001 by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2001, passed in O.S.No.465 of 1998 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the reliefs of permanent injunction and recovery of a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards damages on the ground that earlier the Government wanted to acquire a part of the plaintiff's property measuring 5200 square feet in S.No.4045/1, Puthur Village out of the total extent of 66 cents belonging to the p...
E.K.Palanisamy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
This petitioner is the first accused in a case pending trial in C.C.No.592 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, and 468 r/w 109 IPC. In CM.P.No.3792 of 2011, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recall of P.W.1 in the case. In C.M.P.No.3793 of 2011, the prosecution sought a direction to the Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Erode, to produce the following documents, viz., a) Thumb Impression Register Volume No.201 Page No:50, b) Thumb Impression Register Volume No.201 Page No:84, c) Thumb Impression Register Volume No:16 Page No.14 ; and to the Superintendent of Police (F.P.), Finger Print Bureau, Chennai-28, to produce the following documents, viz., a) All the Negatives of C.No.54/FPB/P./2006 in respect of Thumb Impressions marked as 'D1', 'D2' and 'A' and b) the covering letter sent by the Police along with the Negatives and the Thumb Impression Registers. Initially, the said applications were allowed on 11.08.2011. The same were cha...
Sankaravelsamy Vs. Paul Vannam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
This Second Appeal is focussed by the original 1st defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2007, passed in A.S.No.176 of 2005 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi in reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2005, passed in O.S.No.3 of 2004 by the learned District Munsif, Senkottai. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A recapitulation and re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The first respondent/plaintiff herein, filed the suit, seeking the reliefs of declaration and injunction in respect of two schedules of properties comprising of various items in each Schedule. 4. The gist and kernel of the averments as found set out in the plaint would run thus: One Paul Vannam Nadar had two sons, namely Ramalinga Nadar and Ganapathy Nadar and they were jointly in enjoyment of t...
S.Boopandy Vs. S.Subbaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-2011
This second appeal is focussed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2005 passed in A.S.No.97 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2004 passed in O.S.No.215 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A recapitulation and re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: “(a) declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property and consequently granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his men, agents, or servants from interfering the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property or to put up any further construction in the schedule property; (b) passing a...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »