Chennai Court August 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.
S.Suresh Kumar Vs. the General Manager and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father died while in service in the month of August 2000. As per the policy of the respondents, the petitioner was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, as his father died in harness and there was no source of income with the family. 3. In response to the application, the respondent/bank asked for certain information which was supplied. 4. Thereafter, vide order, dated 6.7.2002, the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected, by passing a non-speaking order. 5. On notice, a counter has been filed, wherein, a positive stand taken is, that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground as his case does not fall within the policy framed for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Th...
Muthulakshmi Vs. the District Collector and District Magistrate and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The petitioner has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking for the relief of quashing the impugned detention order dated 23.02.2011, slapped on her husband as Goonda as contemplated under 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 14/1982). 2. Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the impugned order of detention was passed even without mentioning that there is imminent possibility or real possibility or very likely or most likely for the detenu to come out on bail. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without any subjective satisfaction and without any cogent material that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, the impugned detention order was passed and hence, the same is vitiated. 3...
ind Barath Powergencom Ltd. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. Since the issue involved in all the cases is one and the same, these petitions were taken up and heard together and a common order is passed. 2. These Criminal Revisions are preferred to call for the records relating to the orders dated 10.06.2011, made in Proceedings Na.Ka.A1.7275/10, on the file of the first respondent and set aside the same. 3. The contentions of the revision petitioners may be summarised as follows: 3(1). The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No.534 of 2011 is engaged in generation of power. The power generated from the company is contributed to the Tamil Nadu Power Grid at Arasadi Vilage which generates 710 MWs and supplies the same to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for which it requires 7.5 lakh liters of water per day. It made a payment of Rs.3.2 Crores to Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'TWAD Board') for the supply of water. However, the TWAD Board is able to supply only 2 lakh liters per day. Hence, the petitioner...
Madakannu Ammal and ors. Vs. S.Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants 1, 3 to 8 to set aside the order dated 25.02.2010 and made in I.A.No.1248 of 2009 in O.S.No.152 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- (i) The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the revision petitioners / defendants herein for injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agents etc., from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application for amendment of the prayer in the plaint, stating that the prayer was for declaring and injunction instead of interim injunction and to direct the defendants 1, 3 to 8 to be evicted from the suit property and handover the possession to the plaintiff. (ii) The said amendment petition was opposed by the defendants on various grounds. After considering the plea of both the parties, and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on bot...
M/S.United Cargo Care Vs. Mr.Kuberan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi in Cr.M.P.No.2438 of 2011 dated 09.05.2011 and further direct the 2nd respondent to register the complaint forwarded by the petitioner dated 18.03.2011. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin and the same was taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.2438 of 2001 on 09.05.2011. He would further submit that even though the petitioner has been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin, instead of forwarding the same to the jurisdictional police station, has come to the conclusion that simply because the proposed accused has failed to keep up the promise and not paid the balance amount, the same will not constitute the offences alleged in the complaint and dismissed the petition, against which the present petition has been filed...
Palani Nadar and ors. Vs. SelvIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. A suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property being a pathway exclusively belongs to them. According to the plaintiffs /appellants, the respondents/defendants have encroached upon a portion of the suit property belonging to the appellants. Therefore, the suit has been laid seeking the reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. 2. The trial Court after considering Ex.A.6 filed by the appellants as well as the report of the Advocate Commissioner was pleased to decree the suit in so far as the declaration and mandatory injunction are concerned. However, the relief of permanent injunction was rejected even though the finding of the trial Court is that it is a common pathway. Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.94 of 1993. The lower appel...
Hajee N.Sheik Ishak Vs. the Superintending Engineer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
1. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner, in S.C.No.233, R.M.S.Colony, Thanjavur. 2. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of the Writ are, that the petitioner is running a Cinema Theatre in the name and style of Parveen Theatre at Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur Town, for several years, and has service connection bearing S.C.No.233. There are no arrear for S.C.No.233 till date. 3. The wife of the petitioner was also having an independent connection to run Bobby Ice Factory in Thanjavur Town bearing connection No.S.C.No.351/R.M.S.Colony, Thanjavur. The premises owned by his wife was rented out. On vacation, it was revealed that the tenant had failed to pay a sum of Rs.90,826/-. The liability was fixed on the wife of the petitioner, which was disputed by her. 4. The contention of the wife was prima facie not sustainable, as the liability to pay ...
Sarala Ammal Vs. K.T.Mohan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the learned I Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town to dispose of the I.A.No.188 of 2009 in O.S.No.928 of 2005 expeditiously as early as possible. 2.The Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.928 of 2005 against the revision petitioner/defendant to direct the defendant to make delivery of possession of the suit property and has sought further direction to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- for damage for use and occupation of the property together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till date of payment and other relief. The said suit was filed on 18.12.2001. The defendant also entered appearance through his counsel. The said case was adjourned from time to time. On 21.11.2005, when the said suit came for hearing, the plaintiff's counsel and the defendant's counsel appeared but the defendant was called absent. Therefore, the learned Judge passed an ex-parte decree in favour...
M.Elamaran Vs. J.Abiramasundari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to dispose of the divorce case filed by the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.61 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai within the time limit as fixed by this Court. 2.The Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner / husband has filed HMOP.No.61 of 2010 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for divorce for dissolving the marriage between the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife, which was solemnised on 29.11.1998 at Sumagali Mahal, Tiruchirappalli. The respondent/wife has filed counter statement and resisted the divorce petition. The revision petitioner stated that he suffers from acute heart disease coupled with diabetes mellitus and requires intensive inpatient treatment. For the said medical treatment, he has to stay at Bangalore for months together. Under the circumstances, he is unable to stay at Madurai for a long period to contest the case as his health does not perm...
V.Rajan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.2159 of 2007, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur, dated 29.05.2007 and set aside the same as illegal. 2. The petitioner is the de-facto complainant in Crime No.95 of 2006, on the file of the respondent police. The respondent police filed charge sheet referring the case as mistake of fact. Hence, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, praying the court to direct further investigation by the respondent police in Crime No.95 of 2006. The said application came to be dismissed on 29.05.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. This is the order challenged before this Court. 3. Mr.K.Baalasundharam, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has not taken note of the pending civil litigations between the parties, that the Court may direct further investigation and that even after ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »