Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

K. Thukkaiandi Vs. Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

1. The petitioners in the above petitions were alleged to have committed the offences as detailed below, seek anticipatory bail on the file of the respondent police: Cr.No& OffencesDate of OccurrenceDate of the complaintComplainantPropertyVendorPurchaser154/2012 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120(B) IPC31.03.199921.03.2012ANUKUL VIJPlot Nos.693 & 694 VGP Golden Beach, UthandiMr.J.ShanmugamPower of Attorney of Seema MalhotraPlot No.693 Ms.T.Subbu lakshmi Plot No.694 Ms.T. Yamini233/2012 419, 467, 468, 471 & 120(B) IPC17.05.200723.04.2012M. RajaiahPlot No.297 measuring 12000 sq.ft (5 grounds) Sholinga nallur villageM.DhanalaxmiPOA of Mr.Naveen Chandra KampaniT.Subbulakshmiw/o of the petitioner012 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120(B) IPC5.06.200729.05.2012UpendraMotilal DalalPlot No.277 measuring 12000 sq.ft (5 grounds) Sholinga nallurM.DhanalaxmiPOA of Shri.Mothilal Karsondas Dalal and Shri Gunvant Lal Karsondas DalalT.Subbulakshmiw/o of the petitioner2. The petitioners are husband, wife and daug...

V. Aravind Vs. the Principal Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Micro, ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 20.9.2011 at the earliest.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 20.9.2011, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 20.09.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a...

The Management, Eih Associated Hotels Ltd., (The Trident, Chennai) and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(5)LLN729; 2013(1)LW258

(Prayers: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Preliminary Award dated 02.09.2010 and the Award dated 27.05.2011 made in I.D.No.203/2004 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for willfully and deliberately violating the common order of this Hon'ble Court dated 19.03.2012 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No.25031 of 2011.) Common Order 1. The writ petition is filed by the Management seeking to challenge the Preliminary Award dated 02.09.2010 and the final Award dated 27.05.2011 made in I.D.No.203 of 2004 by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. 2. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal order passed against the second respondent workman dated 06.01.2004 and directed reinstatement with backwages and other attendant benefits. In the writ petition...

S. Anbarasan Vs. the District Collector, Cuddalore District

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.09.2012 within a time frame fixed by this Court and consequently direct the respondents to allow the Petitioner's Tripper Lorries bearing Nos.TN-31-AE-3694 and PY-01-N-5757 to pass through Pondicherry check post to reach Cuddalore.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 11.09.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the firs...

Sri Maruthi Processors a Registered Firm by Partner R. Palanisamy Kala ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)598; 2013(1)LW(Crl)440

(Prayer: Crl.R.C. No. 654 of 2012:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order 07.06.2012 made in Crl.M.P. No. 1811 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 110 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No. II) Erode and District. Crl.R.C. No. 655 of 2012:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order 07.06.2012 made in Crl.M.P. No. 2057 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 94 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No. II) Erode and District. Crl.R.C. No. 657 of 2012:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order 07.06.2012 made in Crl.M.P. No. 1886 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 120 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court No. II) Erode and District.) COMMON ORDER: 1. All the three Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the petitioners/accused, aggrieved by the common order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the Court below, by wh...

K. Molaiappan Vs. the Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. and ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.) The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent-the Divisional Manager, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Salem, in Ref.Na.Ka.No.5876/E2/97, dated 28.04.1998, the second respondent-the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, Chennai, in Ref.Na.Ka.No.28121/I.R1/97, dated 14.07.1998, and the award passed by the third respondent-the Presiding Officer, the Central Government Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.No.170/2001, dated 28.11.2001, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited at Mettur Dam as an unskilled labourer on 30.05.19...

Ln.Mohandas Gandhi Vs. the Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, ...

Court: Chennai

The petitioner has filed the petition for anticipatory bail for the third time for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 466, 468, 471, 477(A) IPC in Cr.No.173 of 2012. The first petition in Crl.OP.No. 5973 of 2012 was dismissed as withdrawn. The second petition Crl.OP. No 12777 of 2012 was dismissed on 25.6.2012. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was made by the defacto-complainant herein, that the petitioner alongwith A1 was responsible for committing misapprpopriation of funds of the local body to the tune of Rs.3,64,74,290/- and thus caused loss to the local body. The above fact was brought to light by the local fund audit. They have issued No Objection Certificate to various properties in reserved sites and given permission for constructing houses by creating forged documents, house tax and water tax receipts and thus caused the loss to the local body. 3. The present application has been filed stating that there are following change of circumstances; 1.T...

K. Ramalingam Vs. K. Raghuraman and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2006 made in O.S.No.504 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Judge Fast Track Court-1, Chingleput.) R.BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2006 made in O.S.No.504 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Judge Fast Track Court-1, Chingleput, whereby the trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition by allotting 1/4th share to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The unsuccessful first defendant is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the suit. 2. Defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiff are the sons of 3rd defendant. 4th Defendant is the wife of 1st defendant. The joint family originally owned ancestral property of a total extent of ten acres (Suit Item Nos.1 to 7) in Cheyyur. Defendant No.3 has also been taking on lease lands of one Venu and Adikesavulu and also salt lands and wa...

Shanthi Selvam and Others Vs. K.Annamalai and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(2)TNMAC769

(Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 8.7.2003 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.466 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chief Judge, Chennai.) R. SUBBIAH, J. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, challenging the award, dated 8.7.2003 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.466 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chief Judge, Chennai, the legal heirs of the the deceased V.Selvam, have filed the present appeal. 2. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that the deceased Selvam died in the motor accident that occurred on 27.7.1995 involving the lorry bearing Registration No.TNW 8901 owned by the 5th respondent and insured with the New India Insurance Company, the respondents 3 and 4 in the present appeal. The accident had occurred when the deceased Selvam was riding his Scooter bearing Reg...

P. Vijayakumar Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Udumalpet Electricity ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.) The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to letter No.36332/1070/Adm1/Asst.1/2002, dated 09.08.2002, emanated from the first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to suitable post in the TNEB (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board) on compassionate grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father Late Pakkianathan, while serving in the Dharapuram Rural Section of the TNEB as Wireman, died on 12.06.1991 at the age of 44. The petitioner, who was 10 years old at that time, after attaining majority, applied to the Board on 09.10.2000 seeking compassionate appointment. The respondent/Board, on receipt of the application, directed him to furnish a guarantee letter to the effect that he would join service under the Board i...