Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
Shabbir Sanitary Stores Vs. AmiruddIn Bhoy Mullah Abdullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Petition in CRP.No.1546 of 2009 filed under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 made in RCA.349 of 2006 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the order and decreetal order dated 20.01.2006 made in RCOP.No.1319 of 2005 on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. CRP.No.1509 of 2009:Petition in CRP.No.1509 of 2009 filed under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 made in RCA.350 of 2006 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the order and decreetal order dated 20.01.2006 made in RCOP.No.1321 of 2005 on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.COMMON ORDER1. CRP. (NPD). No. 1546 of 2009:This revision has been directed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamanickam Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to take action against the 8th respondent departmentally for his involvement in FIR No.534/11 dated 16.10.2011 on the file of the Thittakudi Police Station Cuddalore District and further direct the respondent 1 and 2 to pay the Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) towards compensation to the petitioner for the custodial violence done to the petitioner by the 8th respondent on 23.07.2011 at Thittakudi Police Station resulting him permanent hearing disability.O R D E R1. The petitioner has moved this petition with the following prayer:To direct the 4th respondent to take action against the 8th respondent departmentally for his involvement in FIR No.534/11 dated 16.10.2011 on the file of the thittakudi Police Station Cuddalore District and further direct the respondent 1 and 2 to pay the Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) towards compensation to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Bhashyam Ramesh at Rajagopalan Vs. R.Saroja at K.K.Saroja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.929 of 2001 is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act,1984, against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional Family Court at Madras, passed in O.S.No.38 of 2000, dated 19.12.2000.JUDGMENTS.Vimala, J.1. The short lived marriage which got solemnized on 24.6.1999 was dissolved on 17.4.2000 by a decree passed by Superior Court of California, County San Diego, Family Division, in Case No.D.454571 ABC, filed by the husband/appellant herein. 1.1. The wife filed the suit before the 1st Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, for a declaration that the decree of divorce passed by the Superior Court of California is abinitio void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff, which came to be decreed. The said judgment passed by the 1st Additional Principal Family Court, decreeing the suit, is under challenge in this appeal.2. Brief facts:-The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 24.6.1999 at Sholingapuram, Vellore D...
Tag this Judgment!Manimeghalai Vs. T.K.Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
PrayerSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 13.10.2005 in A.S.No.54 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned 1st Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli dated 13.01.2004 in O.S.No.1418 of 1996.JUDGMENT1. The defendants in the partition suit in O.S.No.1418 of 1996, in the Court of I Additional District Munsif, Trichirappalli, are the appellants.2. The terraced house, bearing Door No.79 situate in Thiruvalluvar Street in Thiruvanaikoil North Street, measuring 78 x 19 1/2 square feet is the suit property. Originally, it belonged to one Rajammal. Her daughter Packialakshmi married Kulanthai Velu. The couples have one son and one daughter. They are Natarajan and Manimegalai. On 26.09.1986, under Ex.A.1 partition deed, the northern side 'A' Schedule was given to Natarajan, while the southern side 'B' schedule was given to Manimegalai. Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Kala Vs. State Rep by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 05.09.2011 made in C.M.P.No.4262 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.ORDER1. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) takes notice on behalf of the respondent.2.This criminal revision case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel on 5.09.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.4262 of 2011 filed under section 451 Cr.P.C praying for the grant of interim custody of the vehicle namely, Bullet Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TAT 155, which had been seized by the police and produced as a case property in crime No.145 of 2011 on the file of Eraniel Police station. The said case was registered for alleged offences under sections 279, 147, 148, 294(b) and 302 IPC.3.According to the prosecution case, while Nagarajan, the husband of the petitioner, was proceeding in the said motor cycle belonging to the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.R.Devashankar Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
JUDGMENT(Delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)1. The fourth respondent in the writ petition has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.4.2010, by which the learned Judge has set aside the impugned government order in G.O.Ms.No.136, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 11.8.2006. The writ petition was filed by the fifteenth respondent herein and was decided along with other batch of cases. However, it is relevant to note that in all other cases also the present appellant was a party and, in fact, the present appellant has also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2226 of 2009 and that came to be dismissed by the above said common order and, admittedly, the appellant has not filed any appeal against the said order of dismissal.2. The fifteenth respondent herein (writ petitioner) was appointed by the Director of Health Services and Family Planning as Tutor as per the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 on temporary basis with a condition that he wi...
Tag this Judgment!A.Velusamy Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification of the 3rd respondent, quash the same so far as it relates to the calling for the appointment of retail outlet dealers in Ponnampalayam Village, Puliampatti-Bhavanisagar Road, Sathi Taluk, Erode District (Sl.No.90 in Notification Advertisement) published by the 3rd respondent in Tamil Daily Dinakaran, Coimbatore edition dated 01.11.2010 and consequently forbear the respondents from appointing any new retail outlet dealers in the above said place near the retail outlet of the petitioner.O R D E R1. Seeking to quash the impugned notification of the 3rd respondent in so far as it relates to the calling for the appointment of retail outlet dealers in Ponnampalayam Village, Puliampatti-Bhavanisagar Road, Sathi Taluk, Erode District (Sl.No.90 in Notification Adverti...
Tag this Judgment!S.Kalaiarasu Vs. Wavoo Wajeeha Womens College.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
PRAYER: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the second respondent, to comply with the eligibility criteria and procedure for affiliation as prescribed in the U.G.C. (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the second respondent, i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of Law (Convener of Convener Committee, M.S.University), to comply with the eligibility criteria and procedure for affiliation as prescribed in U.G.C. (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009.2 The petitioner is working as Associate Professor of History at Arignar Anna College, Aralvaimozhi, Kanyakumari District. He is also Senate member of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The Colleges situated in southern districts of Tamilnadu are affiliated with various...
Tag this Judgment!The Drugs Controller General Vs. Ms S.Kesarimal, a Partnership
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J)1. This writ appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.4841 of 2010 filed by the first respondent in the appeal. The first respondent in the appeal who is the importer and supply of drugs to the manufacturers of chemicals; drugs, pharmaceutical and food industries, holds a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. According to him, he has been regularly importing a particular drug viz., 'Benfotiamine' which is according to the first respondent, a synthetic supplement finished product. Since as per the first respondent, the said substance is supplied by the petitioner to various companies engaged in manufacturing dietary supplements and not for manufacturing medicine, as per Rule 43 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the exemption granted in respect of the implementation of Chapter III of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, enables him to continue to import without getting approval...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Hevea Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Mundluri Venkatramana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to sanction a sum of Rs.57,500/- in addition to the loan sanctioned by the first respondent bank on 19.11.2011 and for the forthcoming years of studies within a time frame as fixed by this Court and pass such further or other orders.ORDER1. The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a mandamus directing the first respondent bank to sanction a sum of Rs.57,500/- per annum as educational loan in addition to the loan sanctioned by the first respondent bank on 19.11.2011 for the forthcoming years of studies.2. The case of the petitioner is that he secured 80% of marks in S.S.L.C. Examination and 78% of marks in Higher Secondary Examination. The petitioner joined B.E.(Information Technology) Course at the second respondent College during the academic year 2011-12. The petitioner hails from a poor family and his father is a temple ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »