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.
T.Kumar Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporatioin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Prayer: Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Certiorari, calling for the concerned records from the 2nd respondent, quash notices of the 2nd respondent bearing Ku.Ka.No.701/Ni.Pi.5/U3/Ko.Po.Ka.Sa/2011 dated 10.11.2011.O R D E R1. The petitioners pray for quashing of notices issued by the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why their services be not dismissed for submitting bogus educational certificates.2. The petitioners in these petitions, joined the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and services of the petitioners now stand transferred to the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation on bifurcation of the Board.3. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition, read that;i) The petitioners were initially appointed on contract basis. The decision was taken by the respondents to absorb the services of the employees, keeping in view...
S.Ramadevi Vs. the Director of Sugar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the first respondent relating to the order passed by him in ref.No.16640/Tha.Ma.Aa1/2003 dated 25.02.2004 confirming the orders of the second respondent in ref.No.4353/2003/F2 dated 27.01.2003 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner was appointed as Chief Accounts Officer by the Director of Sugars and she worked there for quite some time. Thereafter, she was deputed as Chief Accounts Officer to the Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., the second respondent herein. During that period, it is stated that she caused loss to the tune of Rs.12,512/- by purchasing excess quantity of uniforms. This was found out during audit. Based on the same, on the direction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent by his proceedings in Lr.No.4353/2003-F2, dated 10.12.2003, directed recovery of the said amount from the s...
Ms.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. S.Venkatesan at Maayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order dated 09.06.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.59 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Subordinate Judge], Rasipuram @ Salem.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J1. Challenge in this appeal is the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.59 of 2010 dated 09.06.2011 awarding compensation of Rs.14,48,000/- for the injuries sustained by the 1st Respondent-Claimant.2. Brief facts are that on 20.02.2010, in the midnight at 1.00 P.M., 1st Respondent-Claimant was driving the Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.TN-23 AT 6367. When the Car was proceeding near Vaniyambadi in Coimbatore-Salem NH-47 main road at about 3.30 A.M. in Chittode IRTT junction, 407 van bearing registration No.TN-33 AP 6102 came in the opposite direction from south to north driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Tata Indica Car. Due to the accident, Claimant sustained severe head injuries, deformity in right thigh, fracture in...
P.Bruce Vs. the General Manager Cum Managing Director.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
PrayerWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating made in Na.Ka.No.L/2044/2010 dated 28.03.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to issue the order passed by the first respondent vide Letter No.L2/11929/10, dated 21.03.2011 to the petitioner.ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to challenge the order made in Na.Ka.No.L/2044/2010 dated 28.03.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to issue the order passed by the first respondent vide Letter No.L2/11929/10, dated 21.03.2011 to the petitioner.2.The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Rubber Tapper at the respondent's corporation, he was issued with a show-cause notice on 24.09.2010 by the second respondent and another show-cause notice on 29.09.2010, calling upon the petitioner to s...
K.Mani Naidu Vs. the Arakkonam Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from demanding Enhanced Property Tax in respect of Assessment No.9726 in respect of the property bearing Door No.14, Sarojini Street, Arakkonam and to direct the respondent to issue a Special Notice to the petitioner.C O M M O N O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.3. The above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners stating that they have been paying the property tax, in respect of the properties belonging to them, at a lesser rate of tax, for a number of years. However, by a subsequent general revision, the property tax, in respect of the petitioners' premises, had been enhanced. Pursuant to the general revision, the respondents, had been demanding the payme...
S.Palanisamy Vs. Malliga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.387 of 2006 by I Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore dated 26.11.2008.JUDGMENT1. This appeal is focussed by the defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 made in O.S.No.387 of 2006, which was one for specific performance, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore.2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance with regard to the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint with the following prayers:(a) To direct the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- and to execute sale deed in favour of the plaint...
The Managing Director Vs. Tamil Nadu Kudineer Vadigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.24934 of 2007: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records made in impugned award I.D.No.30 of 2000 dated 17.3.2006 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai 2nd respondent herein and quash the said award. Prayer in W.P.No.7686 of 2008: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent's order dated 17.3.2006 in I.D.No.27 of 2001, quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to pay maximum bonus with interest for the accounting year 1998-99.Prayer in W.P.No.7687 of 2008: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent's order dated 17.3.2006 in I.D.No.55 of 2002, quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to pay maximum bonus at the rate of 20% with interest for the accounting year 2000-2001.COMMON ...
Ms.National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajeswari.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.2551 of 2010 and Cross Objection No.14 of 2012 are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decretal order dated 11.02.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Coimbatore.COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by S.Vimala,J.)1. The appeal in C.M.A.No.2551 of 2010 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The claimants are the legal representatives/dependants of the deceased-Muthupandi.2. In the appeal, the claimants 1 to 5 are arrayed as respondents 1 to 5. The respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal are respondents 6 and 7 in the appeal and as they remained exparte before the Tribunal, notice has been dispensed with.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The deceased-Muthupandi, who was aged 34 years, an Industrialist/Proprietor of the Industry, running the bu...
The Additional Deputy Inspector Vs. T.Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.11.2009 passed in W.P.(MD)No.5148 of 2006 on the file of this Court.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J)1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Judge dated 18.11.2009 passed in W.P.(MD)No.5148 of 2006.2. The writ petitioner/respondent herein reported to 109th Battalion, Mizoram on transfer from the General Commandant, CRPF, Avadi on 18.6.2001. Immediately, on reporting, the writ petitioner submitted his application dated 23.6.2001 for discharging him from service due to domestic problems. He was heard by the Commandant of 109th battalion and advised him not to resign from service. The writ petitioner/ respondent herein was directed to go on leave. Accordingly, the writ petitioner/respondent herein is stated to have withdrawn his resignation on 18.7.2001 and proceeded on leave with effect from 20.7.2001 to 17.9.2001. After reporting to duty, once ag...
T.Udaya Chandran at Ramesh Vs. State Rep. by the Intelligence Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2012
Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of CrPC. r/w 36-B of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 21.11.2007, made in C.C.No.154 of 2003 on the file of the learned Special Judge/Additional Special Judge (NDPS Act), Chennai.J U D G M E N T1. By mutual consent, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission, since the learned counsel for the appellant made an endorsement that he is confining his argument only to the question of modification of the default sentence. Mr.N.P.Kumar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for N.C.B. cases also agreed for the same.2.Mr.T.K.Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he is confining his argument only to the question of modification of default sentence and he also made an endorsement to that effect. He further submitted that the appellant herein was arrayed as A2 and accused 1 to 3 were convicted for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c) of N.D...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »