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.
Union of India and ors. Vs. T.Subramanian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2011
O R D E R (ELIPE DHARMA RAO,J.) 1. W.P.No.21657 of 2011 is filed against the order, dated 23.11.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.233 of 2010, thereby rejecting the claim made by the first respondent herein for monetary benefits during the period of suspension and directing the petitioners herein to take into account the period of suspension of the first respondent, i.e., from 08.03.1996 to 23.08.2007, for the purpose of continuity of service and for pensionary benefits. 2. Challenging the denial of monetary benefits during the period of suspension, viz., from 08.03.1996 to 23.08.2007 by the Tribunal, W.P.No.18394 of 2011 is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.233 of 2010, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3, to pay the back wages for the said period of suspension to the Petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.18394 of 2011 that while he was working as a Lower Selection Grade Postal Assistant at Nungambakkam High Road Post Office, he...
The President Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2011
The petitioner is an Educational Agency running several Educational Institutions in Madurai. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner agency sought for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the third and fourth respondents, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, represented by its Area Manager (Indane) and the Standard Gas Agencies, Arupukkottai Road, Madurai to forbear from stopping the supply of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG Indane gas) to the petitioner's hostels under the Non Domestic Commercial Exempted Category [NDCE] with customer Nos.18145 and 18146 without reference to the third respondent's letter dated 15.03.2006. 2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 12.07.2006, this Court directed the learned Additional Solicitor General to take notice for the first respondent and for respondents 2 and 3, the learned counsel was directed to take notice. When the matter came up on 24.01.2007, counter was filed by the fourth respondent, who is the LPG Gas Dealer and on 16.0...
M.Vanideswari Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2011
There are two writ petitions filed by the petitioner. Writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.11602 of 2011, is directed against the impugned order dated 24.09.2011, passed by the first respondent, appointing the enquiry officer. Another writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.8998 of 2011, is directed against the impugned suspension order dated 18.07.2011, passed by the first respondent/the Secretary, Buddha Middle School, Periyakulam. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petition submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Teacher in the first respondent school in the year 2008. While she was working for the last three years, it has been alleged that the Secretary and one Venugopal, Head Master of School, used to give many harassment to the petitioner and other teachers working along with her, and to that effect, so many complaints have been given to the third respondent/the District Educational Officer, Theni, against the Secretary and the Headmaster of the school. On knowing the said compl...
The Branch Manager Vs. Vellaichamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award, dated 26.10.2007 and made in MCOP No.75 of 2005 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2), Madurai. 2.The 2nd respondent Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The claimants are the respondents 1 to 3 herein. Whereas the first respondent/the owner of the vehicle, is the 4th respondent herein. 3.The respondents 1 to 3/claimants are the husband and the minor children of the deceased Pitchaiammal. They have made a claim in MCOP No.75 of 2005 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge)(Fast Track Court No.2), Madurai, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Pitchaiammal, in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 27.09.2004 at about 8.30 a.m. on Madurai to Melur Main Road near Venkateswara ITI, Uthangudi, involving the lorry bearing registration No.TN...
Saburabeevi Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
(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 22.07.2011, made in No.3/BDFGISSV/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Kadakaja @ Kajamydeen, 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 22.07.2011 under sub-section (1) of the 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 & Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Kadakaja @ Kajamyde...
The Commissioner and ors. Vs. Sri. Viswanathaswamy Idol and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. This Appeal Suit is focussed by the original defendants 1, 2 and 4 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1995, passed in O.S.No.471 of 1988 by the learned District Munsif, Kulithalai. 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 Appeal Suit would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit, seeking the following reliefs - “(a) declaring that the plaintiff temple - viz. the Idol of Sri Viswanathaswamy temple at Manathattai Village, Kulithalai, is a private temple belonging to 4 families namely Vembu Iyer and others and consequentially granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and subordinates and other officials from interfering with the administration of plaintiff by way of bringing the suit coconut trees in public auctio...
Seeniammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 25.8.2011, made in C.M.P.No.06/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Andal @ Jeyachandran, Son of Lingappa Reddiar, aged about 47 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 25.8.2011, 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.124, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in his proceedings C.M.P.No.06/2011, dated 25.8.2011, directing the d...
Dr.B.K.Madhankumar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the sixth respondent issued in Notification dated 2.8.2011 and to quash the same as illegal, ultra virus and to forbear the 5th and 6th respondents from in any manner conducting the examination for awarding parallel Master Degree in M.D. in Immuno Haematology and Blood Transfusion Medicine as one time measure for the Post Graduate Diploma candidates in Clinical Pathology, without following the prescribed modalities including obtaining of prior permission of the Central Government and Medical Council of India in accordance with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the regulations made therein. 2. Five Doctors have filed this writ petition, who have passed three years regular MD degree course in Immuno Haematology and Blood Transfusion, challenging the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University/5th respondent herein, from conducting the examination calle...
Shanmugathai Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
( M.JAICHANDREN,J) 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 26.07.2011, made in No.H.S.(M)Confdl.No.09/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Manickaraj, S/o.Karuppasamy Thevar, aged about 31 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 26.07.2011 under sub-section (1) of the 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 & Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Manic...
S.M.Syed Mohammed Buhari Vs. the Sub Registrar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1.Even though, the interim application is listed before me, by consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2.The following questions of law arise for consideration in this Writ Petition: (i) Whether a registered Settlement Deed executed by a Mahomedan father in favour of his son can be permitted to be revoked by a subsequent registration of a Cancellation Deed under the Registration Act, 1908. (ii) Is the registering authority bound to register the Cancellation Deed or can go into the validity of the said document vis-a-vis the Settlement Deed and the applicability of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). (iii) When the registering authority registers such a Deed of Cancellation, can this Court go into the same and declare the registration as null and void by considering the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908; Mahomedan Law; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well as the averments contained in the deeds while exercising the discretionar...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »