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.
Muthurama Krishnan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 28.09.2011, made in H.S.(M)Confdl.No.16 of 2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Suresh, son of Muthurama Krishnan, aged about 37 years, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, 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 28.09.2011, 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.150, Home, Prohibition & Excuse (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Suresh, in the Central Priso...
Nasaren Vs. the Secretary to Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
(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 28.4.2011, made in H.S.(M).Confdl.No.04/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, N.Kingston, son of Nasaren aged about 32 years, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, 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 28.4.2011, 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.89, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.4.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention...
Rajamanickam Vs. the Secretary to Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 24.9.2011, made in Cr.M.P.No.10 of 2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Anbazhagan, Son of Thiagarajan, aged about 26 years, confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, 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.126, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in his proceedings Cr.M.P.No.10/2011, dated 24.9.2011, directing the detention of the detenu,...
Ramalakshmi Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
(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 28.09.2011, made in No.13/BDFGISSV/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, K.Sankar, son of Karuppasamy Yadav, aged about 25 years, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, 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 28.09.2011, 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.122/Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the de...
Kannan Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 29.09.2011, made in Cr.M.P.No.27 of 2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Kannan, son of Jayapal, 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, dated 29.09.2011, 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.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 'Goon...
The Aruvipuram Dharma Paripalan and ors. Vs. K.Karunakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
The present civil revision petition is filed seeking to dismiss and strike off the suit in O.S.No.8038 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The defendants in the said suit are the petitioners herein and the plaintiff thereon is the respondent. 3. The respondent has laid the said suit against the petitioners claiming to be the member of the Chennai Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalanam (SNDP) Union, making several allegations against the second petitioner and as well as the third petitioner. In the said suit, the respondent has taken out two applications in I.A.Nos.17417 and 17418 of 2011 for interim injunction restraining petitioners 2 and 3 from in any manner dealing or encumbering or alienating the suit property and for interim injunction restraining the second petitioner herein from in any manner representing / functioning as General Secretary of the first petitioner respectively. By an order dated 31.10.2011, interim injunction wa...
indira Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
(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 12.7.2011, made in H.S.(M) Confdl No.7/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Thamban, son of Chinthamani Thevar, aged about 36 years, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, 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 12.7.2011, 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.89, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.4.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the det...
V.Rayappan Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
The petitioner, who was a Salesman working in the 2nd respondent/ Cooperative Society, aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent / Labour Court, Tirunelveli in C.P.No.18 of 2008 filed the Writ petition. By the impugned order, the Labour Court rejected the claim made by the petitioner / workman in an application filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. 2.The Writ petition was admitted on 24.03.2010. On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. 3.The case leading to filing of the Writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Salesman on a daily wages basis. He was paid a daily wages at Rs.25/- on monthly basis with effect from 26.07.1997. The services were terminated by an order dated 01.06.2001. He filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 before the Appellate Authority i.e, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli. The said appeal was taken on file in TNSE Case No.7 of 200...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Prem Electric Conductors Pvt. L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.03.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.896/Mds/2006. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is engaged in the business of sale of Electrical Conductors. For the assessment year 1998-99, the assessee viz., M/s.Prem Electrical Conductors Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as PEC, filed its return of income on 18.01.1999 admitting a total income of Rs.29,660/-. The return was processed under section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act on 28.09.1999. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2005 and it was served on the assessee on 02.04.2005. The assessee, vide letter dated 24.02.2005, requested that the return filed on 18.01.1999 be treated as the one filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was completed on 30.09.2005. The said order ...
G. Muniasamy Vs. V.R. Govindasamy
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of Appellant side 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 opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant entrusted the construction work of the building for his house to the opposite party on agreed payment of Rs.4,00,000/- in which a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- was paid as an advance and the remaining amount of Rs.2,85,000/- to be paid before the completion of house and as per the agreement after receiving the money, the building was handed over to the complainant on 30.7.2001. After getting possession on 24.8.2001 and within 3 months the complainant came to know that there are certain defects in the building due to the substandard materials used by the opposite party in construction cracks in the ceilings, walls, wall joint, flooring dislodgement of the sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »