Chennai Court December 2011 Judgments
M/S. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mrs.V. Sumitra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
These two civil revision petitions are filed against the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, (Appellate Authority) Chennai in M.P.Nos. 377 and 378 of 2011 in RCA Nos. 371 and 372 of 2011 respectively, which were filed against the order and decree dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller) in M.P.Nos. 63 and 64 of 2010 in RCOP Nos. 1008 and 1009 of 2009 respectively. 2. These two civil revision petitions are filed challenging the interim orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in M.P.Nos. 377 and 378 of 2011 in RCA Nos.371 and 372 of 2011 and the order in M.P.No. 377 of 2011 reads as follows:- “ Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent is taking hasty steps to evict the petitioner. If an order of stay is not grante...
Tag this Judgment!R.Vivekanandan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
The petitioner, who was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 02.11.2979 in Coimbatore City was subsequently promoted as Inspector of Police. It was pleaded that while he was in service as Police Officer he has done major breakthrough in crimes detection standard/targets. For reaching the targets prescribed in the Chennai Police, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City has issued various meritorious certificates and other awards for his diligent and dedicated service. It has been further stated that when he was serving as Inspector of Police in Chennai City for having done major breakthrough in various sensitive cases including the house break and dacoity committed by one Murugan and for having recovered jewels, gold and silver ornaments worth about Rs.50 lakhs, appreciating his exemplary service, he was also awarded with suitable awards. Again during the Tsunami disaster, when the petitioner rendered exemplary service in 2004 as Inspector of Police at Pattinapakkam, appreciating hi...
Tag this Judgment!C.Shanthi Vs. the District Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to approve her appointment in the post of B.T. Assistant (History) in the third respondent school. 2. In the Writ Petition, notice of motion was ordered on 02.03.2011. On notice from this Court, the first respondent, the District Educational Officer, Tenkasi has filed a counter-affidavit dated 12.03.2011. The third respondent school has also filed a counter-affidavit dated-Nil (December, 2011) together with the supporting documents. 3. It is not clear as to why the petitioner's school did not file any Writ Petition seeking for approval for the appointment made in favour of the petitioner and it had driven the petitioner for getting a direction from this Court for grant of approval. Such a plea at the hands of a teacher cannot be entertained, as in such matters, it is only the school, which can be said to be an aggrieved party and who will locus standi to question the actions of the department. In any event, it m...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary Devasagayam Chettiar Middle School Vs. Rexline Mary and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
The petitioner claiming to be the Secretary of the Devasahayam Chettiar Middle School, 25, North Masi Street, Madurai, has filed the writ petition challenging an order dated 01.07.2008, passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai. 2. By the impugned order, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai informed the petitioner that the petitioner's school application for approving the punishment imposed on the third respondent, school teacher cannot be considered by the Department since she had already filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(MD).No.9314 of 2007, which is pending. Therefore, the authority refused to consider the application filed under Section 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. 3. Since the Department referred to W.P.(MD).No.9314 of 2007, it is necessary to refer to the said writ petition in detail. In that writ petition, the school teacher by name Ms.Rexiline Mary working as a Secondary Grade Teacher challenged a...
Tag this Judgment!Balammal Vs. Murugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.2006 in A.S.No.43 of 2006 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli in affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 08.12.2005 in O.S.No.154 of 2004 passed by the Learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.43 of 2006 on 29.11.2006, has among other things observed that 'Ex.A.1 unregistered mortgage deed dated 07.10.2002 is not a true document and on that basis, the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint and the said decision of the trial Court is an acceptable one and resultantly held that there is no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court and consequently upheld the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court as a lawful one. Finally, the Appeal has been dismissed without c...
Tag this Judgment!Jothiammal and ors. Vs. Veerammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
This second appeal is focussed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2008 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 passed in O.S.No.108 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, 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 the facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking injunction as against the defendants so as to restrain them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property which is an agricultural land. 4. The defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement. 5. Whereupon, the trial Court framed the relevant issues. 6. During trial, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined an...
Tag this Judgment!P.Vedarathinam Vs. the Chief Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
The present Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order of suspension passed by the respondent herein in his Proc.No.DC/62241/03, dated 28.10.2003 and the orders passed in No.DC2/62241/03, dated 17.12.2004 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to regularize the period of suspension of the petitioner as service with all monetary and attendant benefits. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner, while serving as Junior Engineer, was placed under suspension for the allegation that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/-. After filing of the First Information Report for having faced custody for more than 48 hours, suspension order was passed. Aggrieved by suspension order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2251 of 2004, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by its order, dated 01.06.2004 issued a direction to the respondent to review the order of suspension in the first week of August 2...
Tag this Judgment!Salila Balakrishnan and anr. Vs. the Director General and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
Considering the fact that both the writ petitions are between the same parties, governing the very same issue, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner Ms.Devika Arangil herein is a student. Having admitted for the course of Bachelor of Design, the petitioner has duly completed her first semester. As per the regulation governing the course, a student is required to have 75% attendance for each semester. 3. The second semester commenced during the first week of January,2011 and the examinations were scheduled to be commenced on 10th May, 2011. The petitioner was informed by the third respondent about the lack of attendance for the period between 10.01.2011 to 31.03.2011. For the period from 10.01.2011 to 31.01.2011, the petitioner was having 90% and from 10.01.2011 to 28.02.2011, the petitioner was having 71% attendance. A letter dated 07.03.2011 was sent by the third respondent to the petitioner informing the said fact. Apart from the intimatio...
Tag this Judgment!Plastic Processors Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order of the Tribunal by which the Tribunal, while confirming the orders of the assessing authority as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959, has held that the assessee is liable for penalty to the minimum levy of 50%. It is against the said impugned order of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed the present revision which was admitted on the following questions of law “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in levying penalty on the petitioner even after holding that the petitioner has reported the turnover and claimed exemption is correct in law ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in levying penalty on the ground “but for the investigation this suppression would not have come to light” is correct in law “ re...
Tag this Judgment!Sambandam and ors. Vs. Nataraja Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The Appellants/Defendants 2, 3 and 5 and later, after the death of the First Appellant/Second Defendant 4 to 8 Appellants (who have been brought on record as Legal Representatives of the First Appellant/Second Defendant are the Appellants in S.A.No.635 of 1997, filed against the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court, viz., the Learned Additional Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.14 of 1993 dated 14/11/1996 in setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Sirkalai in O.S.No.516 of 1980 dated 30/10/1992. 2. The First Appellate Court, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.14 of 1993 filed by the First Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff has inter alia observed that the Defendants are not entitled to claim the benefits of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (amended by the Act 3 of 1992) and further observed that the First Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the Defendants and resultantly, allo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »