Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

Mehanavathy Vs. Punyakodi

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)126; 2013AIR(Mad)1

(Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree, dated 2.11.1998 made in A.S.No.84 of 1997 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvallur, confirming the judgement and decree dated 14.10.1996 made in O.S.No.159 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur.) Where a grantor had purported to grant an interest in land, or transferred the land, over which he has no interest/title at that time, but subsequently acquires, the benefit of the subsequent acquisition goes automatically/instantly to the earlier grantee, which is usually expressed as "feeding the grant by estoppel". This principle is partly based on common law doctrine of estoppel by deed and partly on the equitable doctrine that a man who has promised more than what he can perform, must make good his promise whenever he acquires the power of performance. Whether this equitable doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel would apply to the facts of the case is the iss...

S.K. Kannan Vs. Teachers Recuitment Board, Represented by Its Director ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant in Tamil in Direct Recruitment of Graduate Assistant Backlog vacancies of 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and vacancies in Minority Languages and subject through State Level Employment Seniority.) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the first respondent Teachers Recruitment Board (in short 'TRB') to appoint him in the post of B.T. Assistant in Tamil in Direct Recruitment in respect of selections made for Backlog vacancies for the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and in respect of vacancies in Minority Languages and other subjects by calling the candidates under the State Level Employment Seniority. The petitioner was called for Certificate Verification on 23.06.2012 by the TRB by the communication dated 13.06.2012. The petitioner also appeared for...

Vijayan @ Arokkiyasamy and Another Vs. Angammal and Another

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2012 made in A.S. No.37 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchengode confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.6.2011 made in O.S. No.249 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.) 1. The arguments advanced by Mr. N. Manokaran, learned Counsel for the Appellants were heard. The grounds of Second Appeal and the documents in the form of typed set of papers were also perused. 2. The present Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below granting the relief of injunction in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. The Respondent/Plaintiffs had been assigned HSD Patta in respect of house sites having an extent of 2 cents (875 sq.ft) each, in Gramanatham No.513/15 of Illupili Village. Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. The assignment orders along with the filed maps in the names of the Respondents/Plaintiffs have been ...

J.S. Rajkumar Vs. Shyna Paul

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Civil)678

K. CHANDRU, J. 1. This application is filed by a third party to the Original Petition seeking to revoke the letters of administration granted in O.P.No.520 of 2004 vide order dated 14.6.2007 in favour of the first respondent. On notice being served, a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, dated 12.10.2012. The first respondent also filed a written submission. 2. Heard the arguments of Ms.S.Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr.G.Ilamurugu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / original petitioner. 3. The original petition was filed by the first respondent for the grant of letters of administration to the petitioner with the Will annexed left by late Dr.V.M.Chandrahas, dated 08.11.2001 being the sole beneficiary under the Will, having the effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. The O.P was admitted on 20.9.2004. After following due procedures, this court had granted letters of administration to the first respondent by an order d...

M. Nabisha Vs. the Under Secretary to the Government Ministry of Home ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent vide his proceedings No.52/CC/17/2011-FF (INA), dated 09.12.2011 and quash the same and directing the first respondent herein to pay the arrears of pension payable from the application dated 19.01.1996 given by the petitioner’s husband along with interest to the petitioner.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 9.12.2011 and direct the first respondent to pay the arrears of pension payable from the application dated 19.01.1996 given by the petitioner’s husband along with interest to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, her husband K. Mohammed Musthafa, Son of Kadhar Meera was a Burma repatriate. While he was in Burma, he Joined in IIL of Indian National Army headed by Shri Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose and fought against British imperialis...

Teccon Services (P) Limited, Represented by Its Director, S. Jagannath ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in CST/584566/2005-06 dated 30.11.2011 insofar as it relates to the disallowance of sales to exporters for Rs.12,67,000-00 and further direct the respondent to consider the petition dated 11.9.2012 filed by the petitioner.) This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in CST/584566/2005-06 dated 30.11.2011 insofar as it relates to the disallowance of sales to exporters for Rs.12,67,000-00 and further direct the respondent to consider the petition dated 11.9.2012 filed by the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.Aditya Reddy, learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Heat Exchanger, Radiator and Oil Coolers and registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1959. In...

R. Sentil Kumar Vs. Vilvanatha Mudaliar (Died)lr.S and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)LW68; 2013(1)CTC335

(Civil Revision Petition against the orders dated 23.3.2011 in I.A.Nos.383, 381, 382, 384 of 2010 and 523 of 2005 respectively in O.S.No.284 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Arakkonam.) COMMON ORDER: Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction against four persons. The first defendant Vilvanatha Mudaliar died and therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.523 of 2005 under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring on record the legal representatives of Vilvanatha Mudaliar, who were arrayed as respondents 5 to 13 in the petition, as defendants 5 to 13 in the suit. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.381 of 2010 to condone the delay of 1622 days in filing the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant and filed I.A.No.382 of 2010 to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first defendant. He also filed I.A.Nos.383 and 384 of 2010 for the same rel...

Galaxy Amaze Kingdom Limited Rep by Its Executive Director, M.P. Balaj ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ22; 2013(1)MWN(Civil)194

1. This original application, under order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, has been moved by the plaintiff / applicant for restraining the respondent / defendant from making defamatory announcement on their radio during the prime time. 2. The plaintiff / applicant used the services of the respondent / defendant for advertisement of their products. The plaintiff / applicant is said to have made payment through cheque, which, according to the respondent / defendant, got dishonored. 3. It is the case of the applicant / plaintiff, that instead of prosecuting the plaintiff / applicant, the respondent / defendant have adopted a noble method of making announcement on their radio, that the cheque issued by the plaintiff / applicant stands dishonored, for which they are taking steps to prosecute the plaintiff / applicant and are also issuing warning to the public not to deal with the plaintiff / applicant. 4. The fact that defendant / respondent have ...

Gowri Mohan Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Build ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent herein in proceeding No.Maa.Ku.Na(Ma).Ma.Ku.Na.No.F12/725/2012, dated 09.05.2012 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Maternity Child Health Officer.) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 09.05.2012, wherein and by which the petitioner was informed that her qualification is not in commensurate with the qualification prescribed and hence, she cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Maternal and Child Health Officer (MCHO). The said order came to be passed on the petitioner moving this court on an earlier occasion, i.e., in W.P.No.380 of 2009 and batch cases, which was disposed of by a division bench by a common order dated 31.01.2012. 2. Th...

M. Mani Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)LW(Cri)93; 2013(1)MWN(Cr)67; 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)172

(Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.3602 of 2012 in Crime No.147 of 2009 dated 29.06.20112 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee, Villupuram District and to re-investigate the case by the CBCID.) This Revision is filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2012 passed in Crl.MP No. 3602 of 212 dismissing the petition filed by him under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 2. According to the petitioner, he is working as an Assistant in Thiru. Kandambapathy Thiru Madam situated in Gingee and he is assisting the said Mutt for the past 20 years. On 10.12.2009, ten unknown persons trespassed into the Mutt with deadly weapons, assaulted the petitioner and the Madathipathi and also caused theft of 54 sovereins of gold jewels, 7 grams of silver, two cell phones, 6 bangles and two platinum rings having a total value of Rs.1,16,000/- and they have also taken the two wheeler bearing Re...