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.
Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
This application is filed by the respondent to dismiss C.P.No.68 of 2009. 2. C.P.No.68 of 2009 was filed by the respondent in this application to pass an order of winding up of the applicant company. Alongwith C.P.No.68 of 2009, various applications were filed by various creditors and other persons for winding up of the applicant company. During the pendency of the said applications, an order of winding up was passed in C.P.No.68 of 2009 on 31.3.2009 and a provisional liquidator was appointed. The appointment of provisional liquidator was challenged in O.S.A.Nos.84 and 93 of 2009 and the Honourable Divisional Bench stayed the appointment of provisional liquidator subject to certain conditions. The order for effecting advertisement dated 31.3.2009 was also subsequently deferred. Meanwhile, Cash and Carry Wholesale Traders Private Limited filed Company Application Nos.1066 and 1067 of 2009 under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act proposing a scheme of arrangement to make the compa...
C.P.Murugesan Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist by an order dated 28.4.1986 on temporary basis under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. His appointment was pursuant to the sponsorship made by the Employment Exchange, Dindigul. Thereafter, the petitioner was ousted from service by an order dated 20.9.1991, while he was working at Coimbatore. 2.The petitioner filed Original Application No. 3955 of 1991 questioning the order dated 20.9.1991, ousting the petitioner from service. The Tribunal while admitting the said Original Application, granted interim stay of the termination order on 12.11.1991. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was reappointed by the fourth respondent by an order dated 9.12.1991. He joined duty on 11.12.1991. 3.While so, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.377, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 12.12.1995, regularising the service of the petitioner with effect from 29.3.1994. 4.The petitioner...
D. Paranjothi Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 5.9.2011 made in W.P. No.15429 of 2010, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, finding no merit in the same. 2. The writ petition was filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records of the respondents relating to the notice for appointment of LPG Distributors published in the English Daily The Hindu dated 15.6.2010, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to adopt new directions issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. 3. In the writ proceedings, the appellant herein contended that the selection for LPG Distributorship should be through lot system and not by following the procedure prescribed in the impugned notification. According to the appellant, the revised guidelines issued in the month of October, 2010 for the appointment of LPG Distributors should not be followe...
C.Palaniswamy Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the rcords of the 1st respondent dated 02.04.2004 made in file No.9(3)/96/E1 and also dated 02.07.1996 made in file lNo.9(2)/93/E1 and quash the said order of the first respondent dated 02.04.2004 and 02.07.1996 and consequently direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of payment of terminal benefits that he was in service till he attained the age of superannuation and to pay all the arrears of back wages, pension, gratuity, etc., taking into account that he was in service till he attain the age of superannuation. 2. The case of the petitioner as given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows: The petitioner was selected and appointed as Deputy General Manager in 1998 in the respondent Corporation and he wa sposted in various places. A minor punishment was imposed on the petitioner on 26.06.1994 for a lapse said to have taken pla...
A.Natarajan and ors. Vs. Assistant Director (Quality Control)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions, challenging a communication dated 21.9.2011 sent by the Commissioner of Agriculture to the Joint Directors of Agriculture, Pudukkottai, Thanjavur, Thiruvarur, Thiruvannamalai, Cuddalore, Trichy, Kancheepuram, Villuppuram, Dindigul, Nagapattinam and Erode, calling upon them to take necessary action against the petitioners and others under the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order 1985 and the consequential show cause notices issued either by the Assistant Directors or by the Joint Directors of Pudukottai, Thanjavur and Tiruchirappalli. 2. I have heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are licensed dealers in respect of fertilizers. The terms and conditions of license are governed by Fertilizer Control Order 1985, issued in terms of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. Since the petitioners c...
P.C. Vethagiri and ors. Vs. P.R.Chittibabu Mudaliar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
1.The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:- 1.(a) The first plaintiff, 2nd defendant, 6th defendant, 10th defendant and 11th defendant are the sons of the 1st defendant. The schedule mentioned properties are ancestral joint family properties, of which the first defendant is Kartha. The sons of the first defendant are entitled to 9/48 share in the suit properties. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons and daughters of the first plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 5 are the sons of the second defendant. Defendants 7 to 9 are daughters and son of the 6th defendant. 10th defendant has no issue. Defendants 12 and 13 are the daughters and son of the 11th defendant. The suit property being co-parcenary joint family property, sons and unmarried daughter of the first plaintiff have also been added as parties to the suit. 1.(b) The first defendant has got 3 daughters by name Kumudavalli, Vasantha andDevigarani and the said three daughters have long back been given in marriage and they have been suffi...
L.Kannaki Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The petitioner was appointed as Casual Labourer, on daily wage basis, in the third respondent Cattle Breeding Farm, on 30.05.1988. According to the petitioner, the Additional Director, Exotic Cattle Breeding Farm, Eachankottai sent proposals to the Director of Animal Husbandry, Chennai, in the year 1993, for regularisation of Casual Labourers, who have rendered five years of service. The petitioner ranks at serial number 25 in the women list of Casual Labourers. The Director of Animal Husbandry, Chennai forwarded the same to the Government, on 06.02.1995, recommending regularisation of the services of Casual Labourers. 2.Before the Government passed orders on the proposals of the Director of Animal Husbandry, Chennai, the Casual Labourers, numbering 465, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Applications in O.A.Nos.893, 894, 1455, 2423 and 3851 of 1993 seeking regularisation of their services. The Tribunal passed an order dated 26.10.1994 in the said Ori...
Mrs.Muniyammal Thiruvadi Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The two Writ Petitions as well as the Contempt Petition were filed by one and the same person. The petitioner one Muniyammal Thiruvadi represented by her power agent by name M.Dhanasekaran filed these two Writ Petitions. In W.P(MD).No.2578 of 2009, the petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 19.03.2009 issued by the first respondent, the Tahsildar, Ettayapuram Taluk, Tuticorin District, to set aside the same and to pass orders on the representation dated 22.09.2008, after conducting an enquiry and also to issue a patta in respect of Survey No.213/9 in Ilampuvanam Village, measuring 0.36.5 Hectares in favour of the petitioner. The second Writ Petition [W.P.(MD)No.11844 of 2010] is of a general nature. 2. When the Writ Petition being W.P(MD).No.2578 of 2009 came up for admission, this Court, after issuing notice on 01.04.2009, permitted private notice and granted an order of status quo with reference to the patta. The Writ Petition was directed to be posted on 16.04.2009. On 16.04...
T.Paneer Selvam Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to release the Deed of Dissolution of Partnership dated 17.10.2001, pending registration with the 3rd respondent. 2. I have heard Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents. 3. A Deed of Dissolution of Partnership, executed by the petitioner and one Mr.S.Murugaiah on 17.10.2001 was presented for registration before the third respondent. The stamp duty paid on the Deed was Rs.100/-. The document indicated the value of the property divided under the Deed, as Rs.4,02,500/-. Since the stamp duty paid was not in tune with the value of the property reflected in the Deed itself, the document was kept pending as pending document No.71 of 2001. 4. Subsequently, the Sub Registrar sent a notice to the parties to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.32,996/- and deficit registration fee of Rs.2,660/-. But the District Registrar i...
S.Jayakumar and ors. Vs. Kepsikala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the accused No.1,3 to 10, to quash the private complaint in C.C.No.164 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi and to pass such other orders. 2.The brief facts in the petitioners' case are as follows: (i) The complainant/respondent had filed a private complaint against the petitioners and one another for the offences under Sections 120(B), 323, 494 and 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.164 of 2009 on 15.09.2009 issued summons were issued to the petitioners. (ii) The marriage between the 1st respondent and the complainant was solemnized on 29.01.2001 as per Christian rites and customs and they have been blessed with a child. After the birth of the child, the respondent attempted to commit suicide on many occasions and she had also threatened that she would implicate the 1st petitioner and his parents and sister in a dowry dem...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »