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.
In Defence of Environment and Animals Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
W.P.No.27864 of 2011 has been filed as a probono publico by the petitioner/Trust, represented by a practising Advocate of this Court Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, praying to forbear the respondents from sending domestic animals to Mudumalai forest in Nilgiris District or to any other hill forest or reserve forest in the State. This writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner, based on a newspaper report that the Government is taking steps to send the domestic elephants, available in Hindu temples and Maths, to the rejuvenation camp. 2. W.P.No.28002 of 2011 has also been filed as a probono publico praying to direct the respondents to conduct the proposed elephant rejuvenation camps scheduled to be commenced on 14.12.2001 or on any subsequent date in any other place other than the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve. 3. In the long affidavits filed along with these writ petitions, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is that if the domestic elephants are sent to mingle with the wild elephan...
P.Singaravel Vs. Ammani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
The Civil Revision Petition No.1755 of 2009 is filed challenging the order dated 27.4.2007 passed in I.A.No.56 of 2007 in A.S.No.112 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem and consequently restore the appeal in A.S.No.112 of 2005 to the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem. 2. The Civil Revision Petition No.1756 of 2009 is filed challenging the order dated 27.4.2007 passed in I.A.No.57 of 2007 in A.S.No.66 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem and consequently restore the appeal in A.S.No.66 of 2006 to the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem. 3. The Civil Revision Petition No.1757 of 2009 is filed challenging the order dated 27.4.2007 passed in I.A.No.58 of 2007 in A.S.No.120 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem and consequently restore the appeal in A.S.No.120 of 2005 to the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem. 4. Thiru P.Singaravel is the plaintiff in O.S.No...
V.Venkatammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
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 second respondent, dated 25.08.2011, made in C.M.P.No.04/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Murali @ Muralikrishnan, Son of Venkida Rediar, aged about 29 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 25.08.2011 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.124, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Murali @ Muralikri...
Mekkamandapam Primary Agricultural Vs. T.Chellam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1.The petitioner is the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd., represented by its Special Officer. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum- the authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (for short PSA Act) made in PSA No.14 of 2003, dated 8.2.2008. By the impugned order, the second respondent had computed a sum of Rs.2,97,867/- as due and payable towards subsistence allowance for the first respondent for the period from 12.6.2001 to 31.8.2004 on graded basis. When the writ petition came up on 3.4.2009, notice was issued to the respondents. Pending notice, this court directed the petitioner society to deposit Rs.1 lakh as a condition precedent for grant of stay. On notice, the respondents appeared through counsel. 2.The facts leading to filing of the case are as follows: A criminal case was registered against the first respondent by the Commercial Crime Inve...
K.Dasarathan Vs. Mr.Rajesh Lakhani, I.A.S. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1.One Mr.K.Dasarathan filed the Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.513 of 2010 seeking to punish the respondents namely (1) Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, (2) Inspector of Police, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai (3) Mr.Kesavan, Villivakkam, Chennai and (4) Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) Chennai for having committed Contempt of Court, for not obeying the order dated 10.09.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16618 of 2009. 2.Mr.Kesavan, who was arrayed as third respondent in the aforesaid Contempt Petition filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.21514 of 2010 seeking to quash the notice dated 08.09.2010 of the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai issued the said notice dated 08.09.2010 under Section 220 read with 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (shortly “CCMC Act”) directing the writ petitioner namely Kesavan to remove the encroachment put up at Siv...
R.Kalaiselvi Vs. the District Magistrate and District Collector and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 25.08.2011, made in C.M.P.No.05/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Raja @ Rajagopaladurai, Son of Subbaiah, confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, 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 25.08.2011 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.124, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Raja @ Rajagopaladurai, Son of Subbaiah, in the Central Prison, Mad...
B.Sukumaran Vs. the Principal Accountant and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1.The petitioner was appointed as Higher Grade Teacher in Adi Dravidar Elementary School, Dharmanidhi, Arakonam Taluk on 19.09.1970. On 01.01.1971, he was upgraded as Secondary Grade Teacher. Later, he was promoted as Middle School Head Master (B.T.Grade) during the year 1983. While so, the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Chengalpattu M.G.R District at Kancheepuram granted Selection Grade in the cadre of Middle School Head Master with effect from 1.1.1981 and Special Grade in the cadre of Middle School Head Master with effect from 1.1.1991 based on G.O.Ms.No.1178, (Education Department) dated 22.12.1993 to the petitioner in his Proceedings K.Dis.58696/96(J2), dated 25.7.1996. Therefore, the petitioner was granted monetary benefits based on the aforesaid order dated 25.7.1996. Thereafter, the fifth respondent passed the order dated 11.07.2001 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,13,592/-. The said order of recovery dated 11.7.2001 was passed by the fifth respondent stating that the peti...
Bharathi Credit and Investments Private Limited Vs. S.Seeniraja Velu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2005 in A.S.No.10 of 2005, passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 17.08.2004 in O.S.No.105 of 1999, passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. 2. The Plaint Averments: The Appellant/Plaintiff is a Registered Private Limited Company, bearing Registration No.18.32204/95. The Appellant/Plaintiff, on 19.12.1996 gave a sum of Rs.90,000/- in cash to the Respondent/Defendant and the same has been received by the Respondent/Defendant on 19.12.1996 itself by affixing his signature and executed a pronote in favour of the Appellant/ Plaintiff. The Respondent/Defendant for the sum of Rs.90,000/- received by him from the Appellant/Plaintiff, has agreed to pay interest at Rs.2/- for Rs.100/- per month. The Respondent/Defendant has not paid any amount towards principal or interest towards the loan amount. The Appellant/Pl...
Narayanan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J The issue involved in all these matters is being intrinsically inter-connected, all were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In all these matters the challenge is with regard to constitutional validity of Sections 78, 79(3) and 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959) (in short “the HR & CE Act”) as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1996 as well as by amended Act 28 of 2003 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. 3. The appellants and the petitioner in W.P.No.20487 of 2010 claim to be the tenants / lessees in occupation of the land belonging to the Temple concerned for the past several years. According to the appellants / petitioner, while they are in lawful occupation, the authorities of the HR & CE Department had issued notice purported to be under Section 78(2) of the HR & CE Act to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. Admittedly, without offer...
Kamarunisha Vs. the Additional Secretary and ors.
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 detention order passed by the third respondent, dated 14.09.2011, in P.D.No.24/2011/C1, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, A.Sheik Mujubur Rahman @ Siddiq, son of Abdul Lathif, aged about 41 years, confined in the Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the wife of the detenu, A.Sheik Mujubur Rahman @ Siddiq. She had stated that the third respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 14.09.2011, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3(2)(a), read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act,1980, (Act 7 of 1980), directing the detention of A.Sheik Mujubur Rahman @ Siddiq, the husband of the petitioner, in the Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, terming him as a 'Black Marketeer'. 3. The petitioner has stated that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »