Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

The District Manager, Food Corporation of India Vs. P. Jayapal and Ano ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.9045 of 2008 dated 28.06.2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the concerned records from the 1st respondent Tribunal, quash the award passed by the 1st respondent Tribunal dated 21.09.2007 in I.D.No.584 of 2001 and consequently substitute the same by directing the 2nd respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner as a Scavenger with effect from the date when the petitioner completed 480 days of continuous service.) M.Y. Eqbal, C.J. & T.S. Sivagnanam, J. We have heard Mr. M. Imthias, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. The matter relates to regularization of service of the first respondent. Indisputably, the first respondent was initially appointed as a Casual Labourer from 1994 till 1995. Subsequently, s...

Dr. K. Arul Prakash Vs. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent herein relating to selection results dated 22.09.2011 and the proceedings of the third respondent herein in SLMDO:R dated 14.02.2012 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the selection of respondents 4 and 5 herein as Rank No.1 for the location Katchupalli to Kornampatti, (on SH 86), Salem District and direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to allot the said Retail Outlet Dealership to the petitioner herein.) 1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (‘IOCL’ for short) gave an advertisement in ‘The Hindu’, an English daily and ‘Dinakaran’, a Tamil daily, on 23.10.2010, calling for applications for grant of petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership to various places, including the place at Katchupalli-Kornampatti on State Highway 86, in Salem District. 2. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner and the re...

D. Babu Vs. K.A. Dinachandran and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ24; 2012(5)LW931; 2013(1)CTC881

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 28.9.2012 in I.A.No.11120 of 2012 in O.S.No.1098 of 2011 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and direct the trial court to issue summons to defendants 1 and 2 to appear and produce the sale deed dated 21.10.2004 registered as Doct.No.5253 of 2004 on the file of the SRO, Konnur.) Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he was not competent to enter into any contract between 1998 and 2008 and consequently, the sale deed executed by him in favour of defendants 1 and 2 cannot be acted upon and for injunction. In that suit, defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the third defendant viz., the third respondent herein filed a statement and when the case is ripe for trial, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed application under Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue summons through court to defendants 1 and 2 for their appearance for e...

S. Balan Vs. Sabitha Prasad and Another

Court: Chennai

(Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2009 made in A.S.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge and Appellate Authority of the Nilgris at Udhagamandalam confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007 made in O.S.No.196 of 1999, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Nilgris at Udhagamandalam.) The second defendant, who is only a tenant in respect of the suit property, is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was filed by the first respondent against the second respondent for partition claiming that each one of them was entitled to share in the suit property. Since admittedly the appellant is in possession as a tenant of the suit property, he was made a party defendant and arrayed as the second defendant as a proper party which may pave the way of attornment of tenancy in respect of the portions allotted to the sharers. 2. After trial, the learned trial Judge accepted the case of the plaintiff and passed a prelimi...

Marappan and Others Vs. T.K. Ramasamy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)LW255; 2013(1)MWN(Civil)98

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani dated 29.03.2006 made in A.S. No.20 of 2005 confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Munsiff, Bhavani dated 09.08.2004 made in O.S.No.386 of 2004.) 1. The defendants in the original suit are the appellants herein. Plaintiff in the original suit is the respondent herein. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.386 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Bhavani against the appellants herein/defendants for a decree directing them to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- as damages for the damage caused to the trees in the suit properties with an interest on the said amount from the date of plaint till realisation and also for cost. The suit was decreed as prayed for with cost by the trial court and the appeal filed by the appellants herein/defendants in A.S.No.20/2005 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Bhavani was dismissed. As aga...

The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Cbn.Div.ii) Ltd ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayers: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the award dt.1.4.2003 made in I.D.Nos.153 of 2001 and 631 of 2000 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same. Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for his wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions issued in M.P.No.40481 of 2005 in W.P.No.3581 of 2004 dated 9.3.2006.) Common Order: 1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners are the State-owned Transport Corporation having their Headquarters at Erode. In the first writ petition, W.P.No.3581 of 2004, the challenge is to the award passed by the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D.Nos.153 of 2001 dated 01.04.2003. In the second writ petition, W.P.No.3582 of 2004, the challenge is to the award passed by the same Labour Court in I.D.Nos.631 of 2000 dated 01.04.2003. In both the awards, the respective second respondent/wo...

R. Anand Vs. M/S. Cibi Knitting Mills, Rep by Its Power Agent, Tiruppu ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the judgment dated 07.12.2007 passed in C.A.No.483 of 2006, on the file of the Fast Track Court-V, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 30.10.2006 passed in C.C.No.83 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur.) 1. The revision petitioner herein / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1947 of 2007 against the judgment made in C.A.No.483 of 2006, on the file of the Fast Track Court-V, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, dated 07.12.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.83 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur, dated 30.10.2006. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The complainant is a partnership firm run in the name and style of Cibi Knitting Mills. The accused is...

S.V. Parasuraman Vs. Anil Aggarwal

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order and judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-V, Chennai in C.A.No.358 of 2003, dated 22.11.2004 in C.C.No.58 of 2000, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, confirming the conviction of the judgment of the trial Court of six months simple imprisonment and the fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.) 1. The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1940 of 2004, against the judgment made in C.A.No.358 of 2003, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court-V, Chennai, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.58 of 2000, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The...

MartIn Felix Celvia and Another Vs. R. Radhakrishnan

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set-aside the order of the appellate Court in C.A.No.144 of 2010, dated 09.08.2011, on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Virudhachalam, confirming the order of the trial Court in C.C.No.1238 of 2008, dated 22.11.2010, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.) 1. The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1211 of 2011 against the judgment made in C.A.No.144 of 2010, on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Virudhachalam, confirming the order made in C.C.No.1238 of 2008, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant on 11.02.2008, for her family expenses...

M. Kanaram Vs. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chennai and ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to close down the Liquor Shop No.4493, Moovarasampettai, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.) 1. Mr.R.Ravichandran, the Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the first respondent and Mr. S. Muthuraj, the learned counsel, takes notice for the second and third respondents. 2. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 14.6.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, have 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 second respondent is directed to dispose ...