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.
Ramanathan Vs. Ayyavoo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 19.8.2009, made in I.A.No.88 of 2009, in O.S.No.78 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.78 of 2007. The petitioner had filed the said suit praying for a decree to declare his title, in respect of the suit schedule properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, who are the respondents herein, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties, by the plaintiff. 3. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.88 of 2009, requesting the trial Court to appoint an advocate commissioner to measure the suit schedule properties and to file a report, along with a plan, with the help of a surveyor. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it had been stated that there had been an oral part...
M/S.Mahendra Spinning Mills Private Limited Vs. the Government of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. Heard Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Dig Vijayapandian, learned Addl.Government Pleader, appearing for first respondent, Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned standing counsel for TNEB, appearing for second and third respondents and Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, learned counsel for fourth respondent. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent culminating in his impugned proceedings bearing Circular Memo No.CFC/R/FC/R/D.No.131/ dated 5.7.2010, quash the same as being violative of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Sale or Consumption of Electricity Act, 2003 and also as unconstitutional. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows: 3.1. The Accountant General (Audit) has pointed out that the E Tax is to be levied for the CC amount before deduction of the incentive allowed for power factor and night hour rebate as per the provisions of the Act and due to misinterpr...
Andichamy Naicker Vs. Nallamuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 21/7/2005 in A.S.No.52 of 2001 passed by the Learned Sub-Judge, Periyakulam in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 27/3/2001 in O.S.No.47 of 1999 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Andipatti. 2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Sub-Judge, Periyakulam, in the Judgment in A.S.No.52 of 2001 (filed by the Respondent/Defendant) has inter alia observed that the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction because of the reason that the Appellant/Plaintiff has not established that he is in possession of the suit property and since the Appellant/Plaintiff has not proved his enjoyment in respect of the suit property, set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.47 of 1999 dated 27/3/2001 and allowed the Appeal with costs. 3. Earlier, before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 to 8 issues have been framed for determination. ...
Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Ramasamy and Oth ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2011
(The Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for direction to the opposite party to pay the policy amount with compensation and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said order, these appeals are preferred by the 2nd opposite party separately in praying to set aside the orders of the District Forum dt.27.5.2010 in CC.Nos.78/2001, 79/2001 and 80/2001. These appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 23.11.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, upon perusing the written arguments, documents, and lower court records, this commission made the following order:) COMMON ORDER M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 2nd opposite party in CC.No.78/2001 and 80/2001 and the only opposite party in CC.No.79/2001, on the file of District Forum, Srivilliputhur, are the appellants, in F.A.No.479/2010, 481/2010 and 480/2010 respectively. 2. The parties are referred as arrayed in the complaint. The fi...
Schering-plough Ltd. Vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent and quash the order dated 13.06.2011 in C.O.D.No.4/2009 in S.R.No.405/2009/PT/IPAB and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider on merits the appeal filed against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 05.01.2009 in Patent Application No.2376/CHENP/2006. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a Swiss Pharmaceutical Company having huge investments in Research and Development (R&D) for developing new and innovative drugs for the benefit of the consumer public. As part of its R&D programme, the petitioner-company embarked on research to provide Growth Differentiation Factor 8 (GDF8) peptides comprising a specific neutralizing epitope for GDF8. After coming out with the process for isolating these GDF8 peptides, the petitioner applied for an international patent in respect of these peptides vide Application No.PCT/US04/43125 dated 21.12.2004....
Pandi and anr. Vs. Pandiyammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2010 passed in A.S.No.109 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, (Usilampatti Sub Court Camp), Madurai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.27 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Usilampatti. 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 re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: “(a) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. (b) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.” (extracted as such) on t...
Alex Alias Alexander Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
( 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 19.08.2011, made in Cr.M.P.No.2/B.L/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Alex @ Alexander, 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 19.08.2011 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.143, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Alex @ Alexander, in the Central Prison, Madurai, termin...
Banu Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
:ORDER (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 08.07.2011, made in Cr.M.P.No.15/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Viji @ Vijayan, son of Rajendran, 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 08.07.2011, 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.92, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.04.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Viji @ Vijayan,...
A.Petchiammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
(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 05.08.2011, made in No.6/BDFGISSV/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, P.Arunachalam @ Koondru Arunachalam, 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 05.08.2011 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.122/ 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 P.Arunachalam @ Koondr...
Kaleeswari Vs. the Secretary to Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
:ORDER ( 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 13.08.2011, made in Cr.M.P.No.22/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, V.Govindan @ Ariyanayagam, 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 13.08.2011 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.153, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Govindan @ Ariyanayagam, in the Central Pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »