Chennai Court January 2012 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.Elamuhilan Vs. Jayamurugan Cycle Mart
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
The Appellant/Defendant has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.1998 in A.S.No.3 of 1998 passed by the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.1997 in O.S.No.62 of 1996 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur. 2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam, while passing the Judgment in Appeal, has, among other things, observed that 'For Ex.A.1-Pronote, the plea of the Respondent/Plaintiff that the amount has been paid to the Appellant/ Defendant is accepted and also that for Ex.A.1-Pronote a sum of Rs.17,000/- has been received by the Appellant/Defendant from the Respondent/Plaintiff and that the Appellant/Defendant has executed the pronote to and in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and the said finding of the trial Court is a correct one and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs.' 3.Before the trial Court, in the main suit 1 to 5 issues have been...
The Secretary to Government and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
The State of Tamil Nadu being aggrieved by the order passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, exercising powers of Central Government under Indian Medicine Central Council (IMCC) Act, 1970, has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. 2. The Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), suo-moto visited the college run by the State Government on 30.5.2011 to assess the available facilities of teaching and practical training as well as to verify the compliance report submitted by the College and furnished its report and recommendation to the Central Government vide letter F.No.4-132/ 2011 Ay dated 30.5.2011. The CCIM forwarded the recommendation and report to the Department for granting conditional permission for Under Graduate Course and Post Graduate Course for the academic year of 2011-12. 3. On receipt of the recommendation and visitation report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, in exerci...
Tmt. C.Vimala Rajesh Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
In the above Habeas Corpus Petition, the detention of S.Rajesh, son of Saminathan, is being challenged by his wife. The detenu was detained as a Black-marketeer under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980) (hereinafter will be referred to as “the Act”) by an impugned order of detention passed in proceedings C.No.08/PBMMSEC.Act/IS/2011. 2. Since the above Habeas Corpus Petition could be disposed of on the legal submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not referring to the factual aspects relating to the passing of the order of detention. 3. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of detention was passed on 09.09.2011 and the report of the Advisory Board was received by the Government on 21.10.2011, but the order of detention was confirmed only on 19.12.2011 i.e., after the period of three m...
Jayaraman and ors. Vs. the Collector of South Arcot and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
The Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed the instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.01.1996 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Virudhachalam in partly allowing the A.S.No.123 of 1992 leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 2.The Plaint scenario: (i) The Appellants/Plaintiffs' father, in his Plaint, in the suit before the trial Court, has averred that originally the suit property is a 'Pattai Poramboke' belonging to the Government. The Appellants/ Plaintiffs' father and his predecessors have entered into these suit property more than 35 years ago and has made improvements in the land by spending some smaller amounts and in one portion, has constructed a house (Jagai) and obtained electricity connection and has been residing there. Further, in one portion of the suit property, they have raised garden plants and in another portion, they have raised paddy and has been in enjoyment till date. The Appellants/ Plaintiffs' father's enjoyment of the suit property has b...
S. Ramamoorthy, Prop. Balan Builders Vs. N. Ramalingam
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides 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 claimed direction for handing over the completed building key and Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and other sufferings and Rs.60,000/- towards loss caused due to the non handing over the building and for costs. 3. Complainant entered in to an agreement with the opposite party for the construction of house for an extent of 488 sq ft in flat No.1A-A at Sangu Udhaya Ammankoil Street, 2nd Cross, Rajakeelpakkam, Chennai -73 for which he has paid a sum of Rs.6,88,625/- as per the terms of the agreement. Opposite party has not handed over the completed building as per the agreement in the month of June 2005 and failed to complete the works nam...
Umesh Kumar Singh Vs. the Flag Officer Commanding-in-chief, Eastern Na ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2012
ORDER(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan)1. The applicant had filed Writ Petition No.21810 of 2000 before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the impugned orders of the respondents. After the constitution of this Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, the said Writ Petition has been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act and renumbered as T.A.No.11 of 2011. Practically this is an appeal against the conviction of the Court Martial under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007.2. The applicant-Umesh Kumar Singh is represented by his father Sri Chandrapati Singh. The applicant had filed the Writ Petition before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at the time when he was in Central Jail, Visakhapatnam, undergoing sentence of 8 years of Rigorous Imprisonment as per the verdict of the 1st respondent dated 12.10.1999. The 2nd respondent by its order dated 06.07.2000 reduced the period of Rig...
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. K.Pachiappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
Being aggrieved by the award dated 6.4.2011 made in MCOP. No.350 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fifth Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, the insurer, which is the second respondent in the claim petition, has filed CMA.No.2597 of 2011. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant has filed CMA.No.2630 of 2011. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows : The claimant filed the aforesaid original petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.66 lakhs in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place at 14.30 hours on 24.11.2008. The case of the claimant is that when he was standing near the container lorry at the loading yard of M/s.Sanco Transport Limited, No.592, Ennore Express High Road, Ennore, Chennai-57, the Linde Fort container crane came in a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner unmindful of the person standing near the container lorry a...
Mandavelipakkam T.N. Housing Board Vs. Government of Tamilnadu and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice issued to the petitioner for vacating the premises leased out to the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed by Mandavelipakkam Tamil Nadu Housing Board Allotment Residents Welfare Association through its Secretary. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent being the owner of the flats, allotted those flats on rental basis to the petitioner under the public rental quota scheme and the members of the petitioner association is residing in the said units as tenants since its construction. 3.The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2002, a decision was taken by the Board to increase the rental of the flats. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No. 36895 of 2002. This Court granted stay, but subsequently, the matter was settled and the members of the petitioner's association started paying the enhanced rent. 4. It was on 19.11.2011, all the mem...
Dhiren Krishna Paul Trading Vs. Health and Glow Retailing Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
1.This appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.06.2007 made in O.A.No.310 of 2007 for granting an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents and others from using the words HEALTH & GLOW or HEALTH AND GLOW or any other mark, name, logo, monogram or label. O.S.A.No.184 of 2007 This appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.06.2007 made in O.A.No.311 of 2007 for granting an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, stockists and others associated with them from reproducing using as sign age or otherwise, printing, publishing or distributing any label, printed matter, stationery which is colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of Applicant's HEALTH AND GLOW (Device). O.S.A.Nos.185 and 186 of 2007 These appeals have been filed against the order dated 13.06.2007 made in A.Nos.2941 & 2942 of 2007 to vacate the injunction granted in O.A.Nos.311 & 310 of 2007 in C.S.No.236 of 20...
A.Balakrishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2012
The writ petitioner claiming to be a Social Worker under the 4th respondent Mettupalayam Town Panchayat in Trichirapalli District has filed the present Writ Petitions challenging an order passed by the 4th respondent Executive Officer, Mettupalayam Town Panchayat, Trichirapalli District. By the impugned order in each of the Writ Petition dated 9.8.2011, the Executive Officer after conducting an enquiry in respect of the contesting 5th respondent in each case, who were employed as Sanitary Workers found that the allegation made, their employment was irregular, was not substantiated and therefore their appointment made earlier by the proceedings dated 27.4.2007 was confirmed and their services were also regularised with effect from 2.5.2007 and will be paid monetary benefits from the date of regularisation. 2. The petitioner's contention was that the order is an eye wash and contrary to the earlier directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.26071 to 26080 of 2008 filed by the contesting ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »