Chennai Court January 2012 Judgments
A.Boopathy Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
The petitioner, who was an employee of the third respondent Management has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order passed by the State Government in G.O.(D)No.994 Labour and Employment Department, dated 04.11.1999. 2. By the impugned order, the State Government refused to refer the dispute relating to failure to implement second upgradation along with arrears in respect of seven workers viz., P.Logan, A.Boopathy (writ petitioner), P.Dinakaran, S.Sambandan, J.Venkatesan, G.Umasankar and K.Vasudevan. The State Government after referring the failure report sent by the Labour Officer, Vellore dated 04.11.1998, the second respondent herein and after getting a confidential report from the Commissioner of Labour by the impugned order refused to refer the dispute. The two reasons assigned for refusal were that the agreement referred to by the workmen dated 01.04.1997 cannot be said to be a settlement within the meaning of Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act and it cannot be leg...
Tag this Judgment!D.Beeman Vs. Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
The writ petition seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to permit the petitioner to function as the duly elected Chairman of Kothagiri Panchayat Union, the Nilgiris District. 2. The petitioner seeks the above said relief based on the following facts and circumstances as stated hereunder: The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission published a notification in the official gazette announcing election for 191 Panchayat Unions in the first phase of polling on 17.10.2011. The petitioner contested to the post of ward member in Ward No. 3 of Kothagiri Panchayat under DMK party ticket and he was elected as successful candidate and issued with the declaration form to that effect. There were totally 14 ward members duly elected out of which AIADMK candidates got elected in 7 wards and DMK candidates got elected in six wards and MDMK candidate got elected in one ward. 3. For the election to the post of the Chairman and Vice Chairman to the Kothagiri Panchayat Union, announcement ...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi and ors. Vs. Sappani Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
The Appellants/Defendants 2 to 4 have preferred this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.1997 in A.S.No.186 of 1994 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.1994 in O.S.No.897 of 1990 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal. 2.The Plaint Facts: (i) In the Plaint, the Respondent/Plaintiff has averred that a Rough Plan is filed to explain the properties of respective parties. In the Rough Plain, the suit property is shown as 'P' and that the Appellants/Defendants 1 to 4 properties are mentioned as 'D, D1' and that the Defendants' house drainage water letting out portion is shown as 'X' and the rain water which falls on the roof through the property points which shown as 'X1, X2'. From 'X' point, the drainage water to proceed on the northern side, a new ditch has been constructed is shown in red colour. (ii) The suit property and on the eastern side presently the property belonging to on...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ramasamy and Others Vs. the Regional Manager, Professional Couriers ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-2012
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.12.2011, and 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 :-) COMMON ORDER: TMT. VASUGI RAMANAN, MEMBER F.A. No. 679/2008 Complainant is the appellant claiming enhancement of award as per the prayers made in the complaint. F.A.No.340/2009 Opposite parties are the appellants. The Opposite parties aggrieved by the order of the District Forum have come forward with this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows :- The complainant sent a cover through the 1st opposite party the Professional couriers at Faridabad, Haryana to one Mr.Parthasarthy at Chennai. The cover contained an application, to be submitted to a school at Chennai. The said cover was returned to the complainant undelivered to Chennai addressee on 4.2.2006 with an endorsement, No...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamurthy Gounder Vs. Venkatakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.304 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam. 2. The revision petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and also for recovery of possession. The lower Court passed a decree of specific performance by Judgement and Decree dated 29.4.2004. In the decree passed there is no mention about the relief of recovery of possession and the decree only says that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed Execution Petition for execution of the sale deed as the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the sale deed was executed by the Court on 3.1.2007 and registered as Document No.45 of 2007 on 5.1.2007. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed E.A.No.118 of 2007 for delivery of possession of property and that petition was dismissed and against the same this revision is filed. 3. It is submitted by the lea...
Tag this Judgment!P.Manikandan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
Heard both sides. 2.Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.299 of 2011 which is pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Madurai, is the revision petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Case. 3.A complaint was lodged on the file of All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram, Madurai, as Crime No.33 of 2009 against the revision petitioner herein, his parents and a relative of the revision petitioner, by the wife of the revision petitioner alleging commission of cruelty punishable under sections 498-A IPC, demand of Dowry punishable under provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, attempt to commit murder punishable under sections 307 and 406 IPC. After investigation, a final report was submitted alleging commission of offence under sections 498-A, 406 and 307 IPC and also an offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the part of the revision petitioner herein (A1) and offences under section 498-A IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. K.Chandrasekar Vs. Mrs. Ramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
1. The appellant in the above appeals is the husband of the first respondent in CMA No.1946 of 2008 and sole respondent in CMA No.1947 of 2008 / wife. For the sake of convenience, the first respondent will be referred to as wife in these appeals. 2. The appellant filed FCOP No.258 of 2002 before the Family Court at Salem, seeking a decree for divorce on the ground that the first respondent has committed acts which amounted to mental cruelty and she is guilty of adultery as she has developed illicit intimacy with the second respondent. The first respondent / wife filed FCOP No.115 of 2002 before the same Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Both the petitions were tried together and on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Family Court dismissed the Petition for Divorce filed by the appellant / husband and allowed the Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights filed by the first respondent / wife. Being aggrieved by t...
Tag this Judgment!Devendran Vs. Ramalinga Padayatchi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
The Appellant/1st Respondent/1st Defendant has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.1996 in A.S.No.184 of 1996 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kallakurichi in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 22.06.1994 in O.S.No.656 of 1986 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi. 2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kallakurichi, in A.S.No.184 of 1996 on 18.12.1996 (filed by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff) has inter alia observed that 'the trial Court has held that without seeking the relief of declaration the suit is not maintainable and further, this suit has been filed against the Defendants praying for the relief of injunction not to interfere with the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff's enjoyment and possession of the suit property and also that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff has no right to restrain the owner of the property viz., 1st Respondent/Plaintiff and accordingly, ...
Tag this Judgment!D.Parasuraman and ors. Vs. the Government of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
The three petitioners have come forward to file these Writ Petitions seeking for a direction in the nature of Writ of declaration declaring that the qualification possessed by them was sufficient to hold the post of Professor/Head of Department in the respective departments in the respective Private Medical College, in which they are working. W.P.No.7718 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner, who is working in the Meenakshi Dental College, Alapakkam, for a prayer that the qualification of M.Sc. (Microbiology) with M.B.B.S is a sufficient qualification for holding the post of Professor/Head of the Department of Microbiology. W.P.No.7719 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner, who is working in the Institute of Road Transport, Perundurai Medical College, seeking for a declaration that M.Sc. (Physiology) with M.B.B.S degree is a sufficient qualification for holding the post of Professor/Head of Department of Physiology in the medical college. The petitioner in W.P.No.7720 of 2007 is employed in ...
Tag this Judgment!P.Raju Vs. Nallammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-2012
1. The Appellant/Defendant has projected this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.1998 made in A.S.No.2 of 1998 passed by the Learned II Additional District Judge, Erode in partly modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 08.08.1997 in O.S.No.1010 of 1995 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Erode. 2. Before the trial Court, the Respondent/Plaintiff (Wife) has filed a suit in O.S.No.1010 of 1995 claiming a sum of Rs.500/- as monthly maintenance to be paid by the Appellant/Defendant (Husband) and further to create a charge on the plaint schedule property in respect of the monthly maintenance amount to be awarded by the trial Court. 3. In the main suit, during the trial of the case, one to three issues have been framed for trial. On the side of the Respondent/Plaintiff (Wife), witness P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.A1 to A3 have been marked. On the side of the Appellant/Defendant (Husband), witnesses D.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined and Ex.B1 has been marked. 4. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »