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.
A.Kasinathan Vs. the Branch Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a Mandamus, to direct the respondent to sanction educational loan of Rs.1,43,000/- . 2. I have heard Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank. 3. The petitioner passed BBA course from the American College, Madurai in the year 2007. In the year 2010, he got admission to the MBA course in NPR College of Engineering and Technology, Natham, Dindigul District under the management quota. After completion of the first year and after joining the second year of the course, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondent-Bank for the grant of an educational loan. Since there was no response, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner had secured only 48.4% marks in BBA Examination. As per the revised guidelines for the Model Education Loan Scheme,...
Rajamaniammal Vs. Varadharajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
The Appellant/First Defendant has filed the instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 2/1/2004 in A.S.No.68 of 2003 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar, in affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 15/2/2002 in O.S.No.6 of 2001 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Sivakasi. 2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.68 of 2003 on 2/1/2004 has among other things observed that the Defendant has admitted the receipt of loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and also Ex.A.1 Pronote and further, on behalf of the Defendant, it is not established that the aforesaid loan amount has been repaid and as such the aforesaid loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and the agreed rate of interest till the date of filing of the suit are entitled to be claimed by the Respondent/Plaintiff from the Appellant/First Defendant. Further, the First Appellate Court has also opined that the conclusion arrived at by t...
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. the Employees Provident Fund Organization and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
The petitioner is the Indian Overseas Bank, represent by its Principal Officer/Manager, N.Paripatti Branch, Dindigul District. In this writ petition, they have challenged the order of the respondents 1 and 2, P.F.Department, in issuing a proclamation of sale by notice, dated 08.03.2010. 2. The Writ Petition, when it came up for admission on 13.04.2010, Notice of Motion was ordered. Pending the notice, an interim injunction was granted till 23.04.2010. Subsequently, there was no order extending the interim injunction. By the impugned proclamation of sale, the recovery officer of the P.F.Department brought the properties of M/s.Thiruchendur Murugan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., N.Paraipatti, Dindigul, the 3rd respondent herein, towards satisfying the dues of the P.F.Department, to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/- approximately. It was reported that the recovery officer of the E.P.F Department will sell the properties by an auction on 16.04.2010, in the premises of the P.F.Organization at then Regi...
The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nugham Limited and Another V ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.11.2011, 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 opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Complainant having land line telephone connection issued a cheque for Rs.1,087/- towards phone bill dated 7.8.05 four days before the due date through the Post Office, Mogapair and the another telephone bill was made in October 2005. His phone service was cut on 9.12.05 at about 5 Oclock the BSNL office and when complainant went to the office to give a complaint nobody was there and at about 8 pm through the recorded voice he was directed to meet the accounts officer and on 12.12.05 when the accounts officer was met he was informed that the cheque amount dated on 7.8.05 was not collected and hence telephone connection was disconnected. On the advise of Accounts O...
A. Murugan Vs. J. Rajendra Prasad and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2011
This Revision has been filed by the petitioner, who was a third party before the lower Court applied for removing the attachment ordered before judgment by the said Court in I.A.No.1192 of 2008, against the dismissal order passed in the application in I.A.No.251 of 2009 filed for that purpose. 2. The petitioner is a third party and the first respondent is the petitioner / plaintiff and the second respondent is the respondent / defendant. 3. Heard Mr.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Thangavelu, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, learned counsel for the second respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein would submit in his argument that the petitioner, as third party, had filed an application before the lower Court to raise the attachment made in the property belonging to him under Order 38 Rule 10 CPC. He would further submit that the property was purchased by him on 11.09.2008 and he became the owner the...
N. Rajendran Vs. V.C.P.Periakathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2011
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this instant Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 12/2/2007 in A.S.No.212 of 2006 passed by the Learned First Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai in affirming the Order dated 28/12/2005 of the Learned District Munsif, Melur in rejecting the plaint in O.S.(SR) No.7009 of 2005. 2. The First Appellate Court, viz., the Learned First Additional Sub- Judge, Madurai, in dismissing A.S.No.212 of 2006 filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff on 12/2/2007 in the judgment has among other things observed that even on 16/11/2005, the Appellant/Plaintiff has known what is the Court fee charges to be paid. But has not paid the same and further, has also not filed an application as per Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Also when the trial Court has returned the plaint and that the defects in full have been rectified and filed the same, it cannot be said that the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court are not proper. Moreover, the rej...
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board and ors. Vs. Nolambur Residents Welfare
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2011
1. The Original Side Appeal arises out of the decree and judgment dated 25.09.2008 in C.S.No.783 of 2000 in and by which the learned single Judge declared the Proceedings of the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board in No.S4/45202/95 dated 19.04.1996 fixing the final cost to the allotments made in favour of members of the Plaintiff Association as null and void and also granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demanding the final cost as per the said proceedings. 2. After the disposal of the suit, the Plaintiff Association had filed writ petition W.P.No.9768 of 2010 seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to issue sale deeds in favour of the members of the Plaintiff Association. On being stated by the respondent/plaintiff, the Writ Petition was posted along with the Original Side Appeal and heard together. By consent of appellants and respondent, both the appeal and writ petition are disposed of by this common judgment. 3....
Panjali Alias Savaridoss and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2011
Not infrequently in the past, if not in many cases, at least in some cases, while examining the correctness and legality of the Judgment of the Criminal Courts, this Court has witnessed that charges had not been framed properly, evidence collected during investigation had not been let in during trial appropriately, the examination of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been done scrupulously, the power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, had not been exercised promptly and lastly, the appreciation of evidence had not been done meticulously. With pains, we would like to state that the instant case is a classic example as to how the stakeholders in the dispensation of the criminal justice have miserably failed in their duties and as a consequence, the appellants, who have been projected as the perpetrators of the heinous crime, flee away from the clutches of the strong arm of the law. With this prelude, let us go into the facts of the case....
E.Palani Vs. the Tamil Nadu State Election and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2011
O R D E R (D.MURUGESAN, J.) 1. The writ petition raises an important question as to whether the Returning Officer of an election to the Ward Member of a Panchayat is entitled to conduct re-election after announcing the result and declaring the contesting candidate, to whom largest number of votes were polled, as elected and also certifying the Return in the necessary form as per the first election. 2. The petitioner contested to the post of Ward Member in Ward No.6 of Vattamuthampatti Panchayat of Salem Panchayat Union in the election held on 17.10.2011. The fifth respondent was also a contestant. The counting of votes was held on 21.10.2011 and in the counting, the petitioner and the fifth respondent had secured 68 votes each out of total 225 votes. As per Rule 67 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995, which is applicable to the election in question, if there is an equality of votes between two or more contesting candidates, and the addition of one vote will ent...
V.Dinesh Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2011
O R D E R 1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the order dated 2.6.2010 of the respondent and for a direction to consider the educational loan application for pursuing MBBS Course in Vinayaka Mission's Medical College, Vinayaka Missions University from 2009-2010 onwards. 2. The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Course in March 2009. He secured admission in MBBS Course during the academic year 2009-2010 in Vinayaka Mission's Medical College, Vinayaka Missions University at Karaikal, Pondicherry State. The duration of the MBBS course is five years. The tuition fees, other fees and hostel fees for 5 years prescribed by the Vinayaka Mission's Medical College are as follows: “The provisional fee structure of the duration of the course is given below. INTALLMENT TUITION FEES Rs. OTHER FEES Rs. HOSTEL FEES Rs. TOTAL FEES Rs. FIRST 3,50,000/- 62,500/- 25,000/- 4,37,550/- SECOND 3,50,000/- 19,000/- 25,000/- 3,94,000/- THIRD 3,50,000/- 19,000/- 25,000/- 3,94,000/...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »