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.
Vairam Alias Vairamuthu Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
:ORDER (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 06.08.2011, made in Cr.M.P.No.19/2011 (GOONDA) and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Vairam @ Vairamuthu, 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 06.08.2011 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.153, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detent...
Ramachandran and anr. Vs. Sonaiyya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. This Appeal Suit is focussed by the original defendants animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1992, passed in O.S.No.1 of 1991 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Appeal Suit would run thus: The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition on the main grounds that the suit property found described in the schedule of the plaint was allotted to the share of the Maruthukani Servai in a partition emerged between himself and his brothers. Subsequently, Maruthukani Servai died and his wife also predeceased him. Hence, the plaintiffs, who happened to be the brothers' children of Maruthukani Servai are entitled to get partitioned along with the first defendant, who happened to be the son of his brother Mayazhagu...
D.Ravikumar Vs. D.Sarojini Devi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
R.BANUMATHI,J. 1. These four appeals arise out of the common order [09.02.2011] in and by which, the learned single Judge dismissed the application (O.A.No.1191 of 2010) declining to grant interim injunction and declining to implead the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Kodungaiyur Police Station (A.Nos.849 and 853 of 2011) and also dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2 A C.P.C. (A.No.850 of 2011). Plaintiff is the Appellant in all the appeals. For convenient, the parties are referred as per their array in the suit. 2. Plaintiff and Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and daughters of the 1st Defendant and late Dhandapani. The suit property is Plot No.180, New No.6/180, Phase I, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai-118 measuring an extent of 1500 sq.ft. 1st Defendant is the physically handicapped person and was an employee in the Central Government as a Clerk. 1st Defendant took voluntary retirement in the year 2001. Tamil Nadu Housing Board [TNHB] has allotte...
Jothi Vs. the Secretary to the Government and anr.
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 31.08.2011, made in C.M.P.No.8/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Eswaran, 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 31.08.2011, 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 Eswaran, son of Bose, in the Central Prison, Madurai, term...
N.G.Rathinaselvan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order impugned dated 29.6.2010, by which, the petitioner has been removed from service by compulsory retirement. 2. The petitioner herein was issued with Charge Memo dated 26.10.2005, during the period, he was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Highways) Tirukovilur. The charges are to the effect that the petitioner colluded with other employees and committed serious irregularities by way of making false entries in the godown log book regarding the purchase and utilisation of bitumen, apart from preparing bogus bills, causing huge loss to the Government. The petitioner gave his explanation dated 26.11.2005. Not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. 3. The Enquiry Officer found that certain charges are proved namely the charge Nos.1 to 3 and 5. The 1st respondent communicated the report of the Enquiry Officer with a direction to the petitioner to show cause as to why a...
M/S.Raja and Raja Industries Vs. the Branch Manager and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1.The petitioner is running an industry by name M/s.Raja & Raja Industries and claimed to be the Managing Partner. In this writ petition, he has challenged an advertisement issued by the first respondent Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., (for short “TIIC), dated 15.12.2007 in respect of the public auction of his property which has listed as Sl.No.17 in the said advertisement. The auction that is to be conducted is in respect of a landed property in Pudur, West Street, Bodinaickanur in S.No.176/3 to the extent of 4485 sq.ft and 4320 sq.ft and a building and factory including bore-well, compound wall as well as the machinery that is found in the factory. 2.It is the case of the respondent TIIC that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.9 lakhs as term loan and Rs.1.5 lakhs as soft loan on 20.10.1997 for the purpose of setting up of small scale industry for manufacturing neem oil cake for using under natural fertiliser. Ever since he borrowed, the petitioner h...
M.Velayudham Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. The petitioner, a former employee of the second respondent bank, has filed this writ petition, challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, the first respondent herein in I.D.No.20 of 2006, dated 26.02.2008. By the impugned award, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition and confirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the second respondent bank as a Sub-Staff on 19.12.1979. During 1987, he was promoted as clerk and was working in the Mowbrays Road branch, Chennai. Whileso, he was placed under suspension with effect from 09.07.2002, in connection with certain misconducts. A charge memo dated 18.01.2003, was issued to the petitioner containing the imputation of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority directed domestic enquiry to be conducted. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings a...
L.Ashok Kumar Vs. the Commissioner of Municipal Administration and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 3.10.2008, by the said proceedings, the first respondent directed the second respondent to continue the enquiry and record evidence of certain witness whose names were furnished in the said proceedings. A further direction was issued to the second respondent to submit his further enquiry report along with specific remarks relating to the charges framed against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Draftsman on 05.06.1998, in the Komarapalayam Municipality. The petitioner's case is that he married one Sumathi @ Bharathi on 09.02.1997, and it was an intercaste marriage and the petitioner's wife belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner submitted the marriage certificate, which was signed in the presence of relatives, before the employment exchange and his name was registered under a priority category. The petitioner's n...
S.Riyas Alias Riyazudeen Vs. R.Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. The revision petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the order dated 28.06.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.118 of 2011 in S.T.C.No.45 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court (Judicial Magistrate) Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/de-facto complainant. 3. It is seen that the case was taken on file in S.T.C.No. 45 of 2011 based on the complaint given by the respondent herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 4. It is seen that there was a delay of 31 days in filing the petition before the Court below and that was allowed. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P.No.118 of 2011 under Section 258 Cr.P.C seeking to drop all further proceedings and also to recall the summons issued to the petitioner/accused. In the affidavit filed before the Court below, the petitioner has stated that without providing ...
Thavasi thevar (Died) and anr. Vs. Rangasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. This second appeal is focussed by the legal representatives of the deceased original defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2001 passed in O.S.No.505 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul. 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 recapitulation and re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction based on the main grounds that the suit property was under the possession and enjoyment of his father; he acquired the title over it; consequently, he orally donated it in favour of the plaintiff in respect of which his possession continues. However, the defendant without having any right whatsoever, over it...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »