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.
M. Arunachalam Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Charge Memo dated 28.06.2002. 2. The prayer made by the petitioner cannot be accepted, as it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court, to quash the Charge Memo, unless it is shown to be have been issued by the person, not competent to issue the Charge Memo, statutory bar or in exceptional cases where on account of inordinate delay or peculiar facts of a case an opinion can be formed that initiation of proceedings will amount to misuse of power of law or amounts to colourable exercise of power. 3. The only ground, on which the petitioner seeks quashing of Charge Memo, is that the criminal case is also pending against some other employee, and that the records of the case is filed in the criminal case. In absence thereof, it is not possible for the respondent, to conduct Departmental enquiry regarding the charges levelled against the petitioner. 4. It is for the...
Ramamurthi and anr. Vs. Ayinar Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. A suit was filed in O.S.No.209 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musuri by the appellants seeking declaration and possession and mesne profits in so far as 'A' Schedule Property is concerned and for partition and separate possession in so far as 'B' Schedule Property is concerned. 2. Undisputed facts involved in the present case are that the suit property originally belonged to one Subramaniam Chettiar. Subramaniam Chettiar had two sons, namely Ganapathy Chettiar and Arumugam Chettiar, who is the second appellant/second plaintiff. A registered partition deed was executed between Subramaniam Chettiar and his two sons. Apart from the partition deed, two settlement deeds have been executed by Subramaniam Chettiar. Ex.A.2 is the registered settlement deed dated 22.05.1970, executed by Subramaniam Chettiar pertaining to the suit properties. As per Ex.A.2, the second plaintiff was permitted to enjoy the 'A' Scheduled property till ...
V.Shanmugam Vs. the Superintendent of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein on 27.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to give the permission for conducting gramia natiya dancing programme on 12.08.2011 in connection with Sri Bhagavathi Amman Temple, Nadupatti Village, Pudukkottai District. 2. Heard Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner made a representation on 27.07.2011, seeking permission to perform the cultural programme viz., Adal Padal Programme on the eve of the festival of Sri Bhagavathi Amman Temple, Nadupatti Village, Pudukkottai District which is scheduled to be held on 12.08.2011. 5. It is submitted by the lear...
K.Srinivasan Vs. the District Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order issued by the respondent in No.7945/04/81, dated 02.08.2004, suspending the Stamp Vendor licence of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was granted licence to vend judicial, non-judicial and court fee stamps on 14.12.1992. The licence was issued under Rule 23(III) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules. Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules permits the authorities to revoke the licence issued to a Stamp Vendor at any time for breach of terms or disobedience of the rules. 3. On the allegation that the petitioner was not maintaining regular register to record the sales of stamps, and Pending enquiry, the respondent suspended the licence of the petitioner. 4. The only ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that there is no provision under the rules to suspend the licence as the jurisdiction with the respondent is only to revoke ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›