Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
A.Udriyanathan Vs. the Special Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.17068 of 2007: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner interfering with the peaceful running of the petitioner bunk stall at 5th Avenue, by the side of Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 90, 5th Avenue, by the side of Super B Road, Industrial Estate, near Tamil Nadu Metro Water, Opp. U.S. Technology, R.R.Tower-III, Guindy, Chennai 32.Prayer in W.P.No.17076 of 2007: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner interfering with the peaceful running of the petitioner bunk stall at 5th Avenue, by the side of Super B Road, Industrial Estate, near Tamil Nadu Metro Water, Opp. U.S. Technology, R.R.Tower-III, Guindy, Chennai 32.Prayer in W.P.No.17076 of 2007: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of manda...
Tag this Judgment!Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Vs. Ms Subhiksha Trading Services Limited.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Petition filed under Sections 433(e) & (f) r/w 434 (i) (a) and 439(1)(b) and 237 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking to wind up the Respondent Company namely M/s Subhiksha Trading Services Limited uner the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.ORDER1. This Company Petition has been filed seeking to wind up the Respondent Company namely M/s Subhiksha Trading Services Limited under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The respondent company was incorporated as a private limited company on 10.4.1997 with authorized share capital of Rs. 33 crores consisting of 33 crore equity shares of Re. 1/- each and its main objects are as follows:(a) To trade in any articles, goods, rights possessions of any nature and of any use being industrial, commercial, household, technical and in such process to buy, sell acquire, lease any merchandise, goods or property of any form whatsoever as authorised dealers, stockists, agents, brokers, factors and render all such services in the ordinary cours...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Orient Cement Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the service as L & D driver in the 2nd respondent Municipality and pay back all the service and monetary benefits for the service of L & D driver from 25.5.2001.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the service as L & D driver in the 2nd respondent Municipality and pay back all the service and monetary benefits for the service of L & D driver from 25.5.2001.2. The petitioner in this case joined the services of the second respondent -Municipality as a driver. After certain period of service, he was asked to perform the duty of driving the heavy vehicle more particularly, L & D vehicles. One such vehicle is called as JCB-bulldozer. It is not in dispute that on and from 25.05.2001, the petitioner is performing his duty as L & D...
Tag this Judgment!S.Ramachandran Vs. Parasakthi Ganesh Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the Order dated 27.4.2009 in E.A.No.35 of 2009 in EP.No.2 of 2009 in O.S.No.372 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif Tambaram in allowing the E.A. and dismissing as inexecutable, the E.P., filed under Order XXI Rule 32(i) CPC for delivery of possession of the suit property to the revision petitioner as per the terms of Compromise Decree.O R D E R1. The defendant in O.S.No.372 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent/ plaintiff filed the above suit for injunction that he should not be evicted except under due process of law and Electricity connection should not be disconnected. In the plaint, the respondent/ plaintiff admitted that he is a tenant under the revision petitioner. A compromise was entered into between the parties and a memo of compromise was filed in that suit and the same was recorded and as per the prayer made in the memor...
Tag this Judgment!S. Damodharan Vs. the Director.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the service as L & D driver in the 2nd respondent Municipality and pay back all the service and monetary benefits for the service of L & D driver from 25.5.2001.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the service as L & D driver in the 2nd respondent Municipality and pay back all the service and monetary benefits for the service of L & D driver from 25.5.2001.2. The petitioner in this case joined the services of the second respondent -Municipality as a driver. After certain period of service, he was asked to perform the duty of driving the heavy vehicle more particularly, L & D vehicles. One such vehicle is called as JCB-bulldozer. It is not in dispute that on and from 25.05.2001, the petitioner is performing his duty as L & D...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintending Engineer Vs. Sleebachen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD)No.1455 of 2011 filed under Section 37 1(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) against the order dated 28.04.2011 passed in Ar.O.P.No.69 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD)No.1456 of 2011 filed under Section 37 1(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) against the order dated 28.04.2011 passed in Ar.O.P.No.110 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD)No.1457 of 2011 filed under Section 37 1(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) against the order dated 28.04.2011 passed in Ar.O.P.No.111 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J)1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MD)Nos.1456 and 1457 of 2011 are filed against the orders of the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli dated 28.4.2011 passed in Ar.O.P.Nos.110 an...
Tag this Judgment!K.Sudarsan Vs. D.Krishnamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.398 of 2009 in O.S.No.318 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam dated 25.08.2010 to be set aside.ORDER1. The defendant in O.S.No.318 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- on the basis of the pro-note executed by the revision petitioner/defendant. The suit was posted for trial and the revision petitioner did not come forward to cross examine, despite several adjournments were given by the Court below and therefore, the Court below decreed the suit as prayed for on 24.06.2009.2.Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.398 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 73 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree and that application was dismissed. As against the s...
Tag this Judgment!R.Ramani Vs. the Secretary to Government.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
Prayer in 49501/2006: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion as District Registrar by including his name in the panel which is being drawn for the year 2000-2001 based on his seniority position. Prayer in 49502/2006: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.52917/A4/93 dt 5.8.1997 and the consequential order passed by the 1st respondent in his letter No.19330/H2/99-5 dt 29.3.2000 which confirms the said earlier order passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner, while working as Joint Sub-Registrar at Redhills, was served with charge memo dated 08.10.1993, on the allegations that the petitioner permitted improper levy of stamp duty and registration charges, which ...
Tag this Judgment!R.Ayyappan Vs. the Sub-divisional Magistrate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records from the Lower Court and to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.279/2011/A-4, dated 06.01.2012, on the file of the The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.ORDER1. By consent, the main Criminal Revision Case itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The submissions made by Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel representing Mr.D.Anbarasu, the counsel for the petitioner, by Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side),representing R1 and R2/State and by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the third respondent are heard.3. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer,Periyakulam,Theni District, dated 06.01.2012 made in M.C.No.279/2011/A-4 is under challenge in the present revision. The said order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the Sub-Divisional Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!K.Senkamarai Selvi Vs. the Additional Asst. Elementary Educational Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
PRAYER: This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 6929 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of the Additional Asst. Elementary Educational Officer, Memalaiyanur, Villupuram District, in Na.Ka.No.929/A1/97 dt.03.09.2001.O R D E R1. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent to recover the incentive increment with retrospective effect, have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.2 The petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1988. All the petitioners had qualification of teacher training and on the recommendation of V Pay Commission, the petitioners were granted advance increment in view of additional qualification held by them.3 The State of Tamil Nadu, thereafter issued a letter stating therein that incentive increment was not available for the teachers training qualification to the teachers recruited a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »