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.
Packiyam Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment 2. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis with the second respondent Town Panchayat as Supervisor, and continued on the job on different positions till 05.11.1998, i.e. till his death. 3. The case of the petitioner is that immediately on the death of the husband of the petitioner, application was made for appointment on compassionate ground. The second respondent Town Panchayat, keeping in view the pitiable condition of the family of the deceased, recommended appointment of the daughter of the petitioner, who was aged 19 years and fully qualified for appointment. 4. The petitioner did not accep the said offer, and insisted, that it is the petitioner, who should be appointed to the post. Having not succeeded in getting order of appointment, the petitioner has approache...
G.Kishore Kumar and ors. Vs. R.Padmini and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
Original Side Appeals arise out of the common order dated 18.11.2010 made in O.A.Nos.298 and 451 of 2006 in C.S.No.272 of 2006 & O.A.No.1162 of 2008 in C.S.No.75 of 2006, respectively. 2.One Varadarajan and Nandakumar, who are the father and son filed a suit in C.S.No.75/2006 for specific performance against the defendants on the basis of the oral sale agreement and other consequential reliefs stating that the first plaintiff Varadarajan's Mother Kumudhammal got the property under the registered Settlement deed dated 20.10.1945. She died intestate in the year 1971 and her husband Srinivasan pre-deceased her. She is having five sons and her first son Kannan died in the year 1971 leaving behind his widow Seetha and daughters Padmini & Meera. Subsequently, Seetha died and Padmini and Meera as their legal heirs entitled to the share of Kannan. 3.Padmini, who is plaintiff in C.S.No.272/2006 has relinquished her right in the property in favour of the first plaintiff/Varadaraj...
M/S.National Insurance Co.Ltd. and anr. Vs. P.Sathishkumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
Challenge in this appeal is the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.11 of 2006 dated 30.01.2009, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.12,82,600/- for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent/ claimant in the road traffic accident on 11.5.2005. 2. On the wee hours of 11.05.2005 at about 2.20 a.m, the 1st respondent/claimant was travelling in a Maruthi Car bearing Regn.No.TN-30-F-3001 driven by its driver in Kovai to Perundurai road. When the car was nearing Poovampalayam Branch Road, NH-47 Bhavani Main Road, a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-38-Z-0150 was going in front of the Maruthi car and the driver of the lorry suddenly applied brake without giving any signal. Due to the sudden applying of brake for the lorry, the car hit on the back side of the lorry, which caused accident. In the accident, 1st respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to th...
A/M Kothandaramasamy Koil Vs. Vairam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
The Judgment and decree dated 09.08.2007 passed in Appeal Suit No.41 of 2006 by the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam are being challenged in the present Second Appeal. 2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.4 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam for the relief of mandatory injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. 3. The trial Court after considering the rival evidence adduced on either side has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants 1 to 4 as appellants have preferred Appeal Suit No.41 of 2006 on the file of the first appellate Court. 4. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has allowed Appeal Suit No.41 of 2006 and thereby set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No.4 of 2004. Against the Judgment and decre...
S.Saraswathy Vs. the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
The writ petition has been filed against the order of the first respondent/State Level Scrutiny Committee, by which the Committee has given a finding that the petitioner does not belong to “Kurumans Community”, which is a Scheduled Tribe. 2.1. The writ petitioner, who has originally obtained a community certificate denoting her community as “Kurumans Scheduled Tribe” from the Sub Collector, Saidapet, Kancheepuram District on 28.12.1995, has applied to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for a Group-IV post in the year 2005. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission requested the District Collector, Kancheepuram to verify the genuineness of the said community certificate. The matter was referred to the District Level Vigilance Committee, Kancheepuram, which, after conducting enquiry, by order dated 14.9.2007 has cancelled the community certificate issued by the Sub-Collector, Saidapet, Kancheepuram District. 2.2. Challenging the said order dated 14.9.2007, th...
M/S.Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs. Mr.Mir Ali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
Being aggrieved by dismissal of application [A.No.5363 of 2010] filed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and declining to grant pro-order prohibiting the Garnishee/2nd Respondent from making payment to the 1st Respondent-Mir Ali, Appellant-M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited has filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts are that Appellant sanctioned housing loan to the 1st Respondent for a sum of Rs.44 lakhs which is repayable with variable interest at 12.75% per annum. 1st Respondent had entered into loan agreement on 30.01.2010. To secure the loan, 1st Respondent had also executed promissory note dated 30.01.2010 for a sum of Rs.44 lakhs. One Tasleem Fatima joined as co-borrower of the loan. A mortgage deed was also executed mortgaging the house property purchased. Case of Appellant is that 1st Respondent had committed default in payment of instalments for more than 90 days. Therefore, the said loan account of the 1st Respondent was declared as Non-Performing loan ...
Priya Vs. the Authorised Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
The writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 29.06.2011 issued to the petitioner by the first respondent/Bank for sale of the movables listed therein, by invoking the powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'). Admittedly, the movable goods are belonging to the petitioner, who is a tenant in the property, belonging to the second respondent. 2. It is also not in dispute that the above said movables mentioned in the impugned notification are not the subject matter of security for the borrowal from the bank and the petitioner has not stood as a guarantor in respect of the amount stated to have been borrowed from the bank by one Samsen Papli, from whom the second respondent has purchased the property for repayment under the SARFAESI Act. 3. The petitioner, after giving notice under section 13(4) of the Act has approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode unde...
Manjula and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur, dated 17.12.2009 made in Cr.M.P.No.9605 of 2006 in C.C.No.174 of 2000. 2.The said petition was filed by the respondent police praying that the learned Judicial Magistrate should exercise the power conferred on the court under section 319 Cr.P.C., on the premise that the materials placed were sufficient to form a opinion that the first petitioner herein appears to have committed an offence under section 494 IPC and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein appear to have committed an offence punishable under section 494 r/w 109 IPC. 3.The learned Judicial Magistrate, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners herein to file their counter, conducted an enquiry and upon such enquiry, came to the conclusion that the evidence already adduced in the case, are enough to make the petitioners herein to face trial for the above said offences. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and pro...
Tamilnadu Housing Board, Rep. by Its Chairman and Another Vs. R. Sivas ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.11.2011, 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 parties are the appellants. 2. Complainant was allotted HiG Flat in Anna Nagar West as per the allotment letter dated 11.5.1990, and after getting extension of time for payment twice on 19.7.1990, the complainant paid entire costs and was given possession on 26.7.1990. In the year 1994 opposite party demanded Rs.1652/- towards monthly arrears and Rs.826/- as sewerage charges per month. When the complainant paid the entire cost of the house there is no need for asking such payments and subsequently when the complainant demanded for execution of sale deed. The opposite party contended as per the lease cum sale agreement he has to pay the balance of Rs.13,270/- dues and threatened to be evicted the ...
The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Vs. C. Elumalai
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2012
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of appellant side 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 having account with the opposite party provided with ATM Card. On 9.5.2009 when the complainant attempted to withdraw Rs.3,000/- from the ATM centre IOB, Wall Tax Road, the transaction slip received with the entry transaction could not be proceeded with and thereby he was not in a position to receive money. But the opposite party debited Rs.3,000/- from his account. Hence the complaint was made on 6.6.2009 and the opposite party failed to recredit the amount in to his account. Hence the consumer complaint was filed. 3. Opposite party not filed its written version before this District Forum and thereby setting exparte the District Forum allowed the complai...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »