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.
Vasantha Vs. Krishnan (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.270 of 2004, which was originally filed as O.S.No.32 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, now transferred to the file of the Additional District Munsif , Alandur, is the petitioner herein. The legal representatives of one Krishnan, who was the original defendant in the said suit, are the respondents herein. 2. The petitioner has laid the said suit against one Krishnan for declaration of her title over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining him from erecting any superstructure over the suit property. In the said suit, the petitioner has taken out an application in I.A.No.1915 of 2010 for amendment of the pleadings. The amendment that has been sought for by the petitioner was in respect of the boundary and the measurement. The original claim of the petitioner was in respect of 6 cents and the present claim is of an extent of 25,620 sq.ft. 3. The reason that has been set out in the affidavit in support of the application for ame...
R.Balasubramanian Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. The employees of the second respondent-Village Panchayats, raised the question as to whether the first respondent-Labour Court can reject the claim of the petitioners-employees seeking for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay alone, without considering the merits of the case, vide impugned orders dated 11.6.2008 in C.P.Nos.23 and 2 of 2007, respectively, which have been called in question, seeking to quash the same and also to direct the first respondent-Labour Court to compute the claim petitions (computation petitions) without following the period of limitation. 2. The case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are as follows: (a) The petitioners were working as Pump Operators in the second respondent-Panchayat and served for more than 34 years and 15 years respectively, without any adverse remarks. They claim that though the Government passed various orders from time to time extending certain benefits to the Pump Operators, the same have not been paid to them ...
Maragatham Vs. the Secretary to the Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
(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 18.8.2011, made in M.H.S.Confdl.No.52/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Velladurai, Son of Shunmugam, aged about 35 years, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, 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.127, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in ...
Porkala Vs. T.Girija and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
This Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2008, passed in A.S.No.115 of 2006 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in modifying the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2006, passed in O.S.No.366 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. 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 and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The first plaintiff, filed the suit for vacating the defendant by describing him as a tenant, who failed to pay the rent. 4. The defendant by way of resisting the suit filed the written statement setting out various grounds including the one that the lease agreement itself was a defective one. 5. Whereupon, the relevant issues were framed by the trial Court. 6. During trial, on the...
A.Mariammal Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
(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 20.07.2011, made in M.H.S.Confdl.No.40/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Andi @ Pandi, Son of Pattu Thevar, aged about 36 years, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Andi @ Pandi. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, 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.127, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3...
Elisa Vs. the Secretary to the Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 16.8.2011, made in P.D.No.22/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, David, son of Singarayan, aged about 38 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 16.8.2011, 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.136, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of David, in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, terming him ...
Bala Alias Balaji Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
(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 22.06.2011, made in C.M.P.No.02/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Bala @ Balaji, Son of Kumar, aged 25 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, 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.63, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.4.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in his proceedings C.M.P.No.02/2011, dated 22.6.2011, directing his detention in the Central P...
Sunil Jose Vs. Esakki Muthu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order, dated 22.09.2011 made in C.M.P.No.7694 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai. 2. Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case was taken on file against the respondents under Section 200 Cr.P.C., based on the allegation raised by the revision petitioner herein that they have committed offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294 (b), 506 (i) IPC and Sections 2 (1), 2(3) and 2(11) of Protection of Human Rights Act r/w Section 34 IPC. 3. It is seen that as per the complaint, the petitioner has averred that on 05.06.2010 at about 07.30 p.m, the respondents 1 and 2, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Marthandam police station and All Women police station, Marthandam respectively had entered into a shoe mart run by the petitioner in the name of Annai Velankanni Madha Shoe mart and due to previous enmity, attacked him by stick, abused him by using filthy la...
The Correspondent, Vellalar College of Engineering and Technology, Thi ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 27.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of appellant side 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. Opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant who had joined B.E., course in the opposite party college during the year 2005 in the month of August discontinued the same in the middle of the course and thereby she claimed refund of the hostel fees Rs.10,000/- and tuition fees Rs.40,000/- apart from the sum of Rs.5400/- paid towards counseling for the admission. Since the opposite party refused to refund the amounts on the ground that she had left the college in the middle of the course and after staying the hostel for nearly one month and her discontinuation of course the college had lost 3 years admission in her place which would be kept vacant till the completion of the course and thereby there wa...
Arulmighu Virudhagiriswarar Vs. the Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1. Since the writ appeal arises out of the rejection of the interim order passed in the writ petition, both the writ petition and the writ appeal are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant/petitioner filed W.P. No.9616 of 2002 for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the appellant-temple to continue to run the vegetable market at the property of the temple in survey No.263/1A acre 1.05 in Vridhachalam Town. 3. The case of the appellant-temple is that the property in survey No.263/1A having an extent of acre 1.05 is classified as natham and held by the temple as a full owner thereof for several decades. A rough patta has also been issued in the name of the temple. The respondents took the property on lease from the temple to establish a public market in the year 1983. Subsequently, a lease deed was also executed on 14.8.1992 undertaking to pay a lease of Rs.3,000/- per month. The tenure of the lease for three years crea...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »