Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K.Ramalingam Vs. T.S.Ajoy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating to his proceedings bearing K.No.415/2009 dated 10.07.09 quash the same and direct the respondent to register the Gift Deed bearing No.P3/2009 dated 13.3.2009.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 10.7.2009, and to direct the respondent to register the Gift Deed bearing No.P3/2009, dated 13.3.2009.3. The petitioner has stated that he is the owner of the land having an extent of 0.05.5 hectares, in survey No.11/1A, 1.33.5 hectares, in survey No.11/3A and 0.18.5 hectares, in survey No.12/3B of Kundallapatti village, Krishnagiri District. The petitioner's father late Kandasamy was a teacher in t...
The Secretary to Government Vs. A.K.Beena
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J.)1. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai and the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, are on appeal against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.(MD)No.5184 of 2007, wherein, the first respondent herein moved this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 05.12.2006 made in G.O.(P)No.490 on the file of the first appellant herein, confirming the order dated 21.03.2006 passed in ROC No.51726/2004/F4 by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, that the conduct of the writ petitioner availing long leave without prior permission and went out of India for taking treatment, is a proven lapse and total disregard to the Rules, which lead to the removal of the writ petitioner from service.2.In the light of the contentions taken up in the writ petition, the first respondent in this appeal soug...
D.Venkatesh Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned proceedings of the Respondent in G.D.No.121/2011-12 dated 16.02.2012, quash the same as illegal and against the provisions of Act.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed:i) The petitioner shall pay Rs.78,090/-, which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority concerned, while passing the detention order.ii) On payment of such tax amount, the goods detained shall be released and the same shall be subject to the final adjudication order, which may be passed by the authority concerned.iii) It is made cle...
R.K.Surendran Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in R.C.S. No.20 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur dated 10.05.2011 and set aside the same.ORDER1. The submissions made by Mr.R.Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent were heard. The materials available on record were also perused.2. Based on a petition filed by the revision petitioner under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., his complaint was referred to the police for registration of a case and investigation of the same. Accordingly, a case was registered in Cr.No.2670/2009 on the file of the respondent herein. After investigation, the respondent submitted a negative report to the effect that a civil dispute is sought to be projected as a criminal case.3. On receipt of notice regarding the submission of the negative report in R.C.S.No.20/2010, the petitioner chose to prefer a protest petition ...
Tvl.Vinayaga Traders Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to issue the sale bills with the name and address of the petitioner's stockyard situated in S.F.No.363/2A, Pinju Village, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District, in the bills issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondent for any permitted vehicles namely lorry, tractor, Jungle cultivate proclainer and licensed bullock carts.ORDER1. Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.2. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. It has been stated that the petitioner is doing business, as a dealer in sand and other building materials. The petitioner is a registered dealer in the records of the sales tax department of the government of Tamil Nadu. Since, the bills issued by the second respondent do not contain the names and the addresses of the st...
Ranganathan at Panduranga Vs. Ramakrishnan Gounder.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
The present Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.46 of 1997 dated 17.04.1998 preferred against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif of Tindivanam in O.S.No.940 of 1995 dated 26.02.1997.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.04.1998 in A.S.No.46 of 1997 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.1997 in O.S.No.940 of 1995 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tindivanam.2.The 1st Appellate Court, while allowing the A.S.No.46 of 1997 on 17.04.1998, has, among other things opined that while perusing Ex.B.1 Agreement receipt dated 19.09.1990, it is evident that the pronote has been executed by the Defendants (Respondents) in favour of the Plaintiff (Appellant). Since, the nine months old child Manimegalai's mother has met with an untimely death, for the mainten...
Special Officer Pudukkottai District Central Cooperative Bank East Raj ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.4,48,702/- alongwith 14% interest and compensation of Rs.10000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.7.2010 in CC. No.36/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally 6.2.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on eitherside, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal arises out of an order, passed by the District Forum in CC.No.36/2006, dt.22.7.2010, wherein a direction has been issued to pay a sum of Rs.4,48,702/-, being the matured deposit amount, with compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The father of minor petitioner, died in a road accident on 13...
Director V.G.P. Agro Farm (P) Ltd., V.G.P. Square, Saidapet Vs. K.S. N ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,55,000/- towards compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.23.9.2010 in CC. No.236/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 30.1.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and respondent in person, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent/ complainant had joined in the VGP Tamarind Tree scheme, under the hope to get income, as well as land, by depositing a sum of Rs.15000/- per tree, for 5 trees, totaling a sum of Rs.7500/- on 1.10.92. Accepting the amount, certificate was given for 5...
Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others Vs. T. Sharmila ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
(The complainant has filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay the actual value of goods Rs.1,86,085/- alongwith 15% p.a., and rent at RS.1500/- per month, to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said impugned order, these appeals are preferred by the complainant in F.A.No.463/2010 to enhance the compensation and by the opposite parties in F.A.No.363/2010 praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.23.3.2010 in CC.No.222/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.02.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, perusing the documents filed, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties and complainants in CC.No.222/2008, on the file of District Forum,...
R.Vikram Singh Rajah Bonsle Vs. V.S.Jagannathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.NAGAPPAN, J.)1. This original side appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2011, made in the application in A.No.1400/2011 in C.S.No.573/2001. The applicant/first defendant is the appellant herein.2.The second respondent herein filed the suit under Order XXXVI Rule 2 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIV Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure on the original side of this Court, seeking for a judgment and decree as against the defendants, directing them to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.40,55,000/- with further interest and costs on a day to be fixed by the Court, and in default, the mortgaged property be sold and the proceeds applied towards the payment of the amount of the said principal, interest and costs, and in the event of such proceeds not being sufficient for the payment in full of such amount, to pay the plaintiff the amount of deficiency with interest and for a personal decree for the remaining sum.3.Briefly, the cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »