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.Kolandaivel Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to take into account half of the petitioner service in contingent establishment in the Stationary and printing department from 14.02.1972 to 28.02.1978 and my service from 29.01.1982 to 30.06.2007 in the school Education Department, to arrive at the total qualifying service and consequently revise the pensionary monetary benefits consequent on my retirement on 30.06.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation.O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take into account the service, rendered by the petitioner as contingent employee with the Stationery and Printing Department from 14.02.1972 to 28.02.1978 and also his service on regular basis from 01.03.1978 to 28.01.1982 along with the service rendered with the School Education Department from 29.01.1982 to 30.06.2007.2. The petitioner...
M.Mary Stella Vcs. Ms.Indian Association
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
PrayerCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pass orders transferring the C.C.No.414 of 2011 from the file of the Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore, to the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.ORDER1. This petition has been filed to transfer the case in C.C.No.414 of 2011 from the file of the Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore, to the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner.3. The petitioner lady is an accused in this case. The private complaint filed against her is for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now, the case is pending before the Magistrial Fast Track Court specifically constituted for speedy disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No valid ground is raised by the petitioner to tr...
V.Angu Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with petitioner possession of an extent of 7 acres of land in S.No.1099, Ootamalai Village, Hoigenekkal Taluk, Dharmapuri District without recourse to the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act (57 of 1961).O R D E R1. Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the notice issued by the 2nd respondent for leasing out the land of Temple to the extent of 7 acres in possession of the petitioner.2. The petitioner is the cultivating tenant of 7 acres of land in S.No.1099 of Ootamalai village, Hogenekkal Taluk. The land admittedly belong to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is in possession of the land for more than 25 years and is regularly paying the lease rent.3. The petitioner as per the pleadings in the affidavit has...
K.Revathi Vs. G.Diwakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Prayer:- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.6.2008 made in AS.Nos.592/2007 and 59/2008 by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, remanding the suit in OS.No.4430/2005 on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for fresh trial. For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sundararajan-CMA.1087/09JUDGEMENT1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.6.2008 made in AS.Nos.592/2007 and 59/2008 by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, remanding the suit in OS.No.4430/2005 on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for fresh trial.2. The above said suit was filed by the Plaintiff, who is the Appellant in CMA.No.1087/2009, for partition of her half share and for permanent injunction, restraining the 1st Defendant, who is the 1st Respondent in CMA.No.1087/2009 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyme...
Sri Seetha Venkatesh Mills Ltd Vs. the Thasildhar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent herein relating to the distraint order No.181, & 182 respectively dated 21.6.2002 in Form No.1 under Section 8(10) of Act 2 of 1865 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from in any manner demanding, collecting or taking distraint proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the Gratuity dues pending proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985.COMMON ORDER1. These writ petitions are filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent herein relating to the distraint order No.181, & 182 respectively dated 21.6.2002 in Form No.1 under Section 8(1) of Act 2 of 1865 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from in any manner demanding, collecting or taking distraint proceedings against the petitioner for ...
Manja Beevi Vs. Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to call for the records and set aside the dismissal order in MC No.35 of 2010 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, dated 18.08.2011.ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 18.08.2011 passed by the learned District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2010. However, since it had been inappropriately described in tamil as gy;tif tHf;F vz;.;35/2010, the petitioner has chosen to prefer the present revision, as if the impugned order was passed in M.C.No.35 of 2010. After the revision was taken on file and listed for admission, the petitioner left the matter without any representation when the matter stood listed on 31.01.2012 for admission. Hence, this court intending to afford one more opportunity adjourned the matter by 10 days and thus, the matter stands listed today for admission under the c...
Jeyasankar Alias Sankar Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
PrayerAppeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 28.6.2011 in S.C.No.84 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Tuticorin and set aside the same.JUDGMENTP.DEVADASS,J1. Accused 1 and 2, in S.C.No.84 of 2011, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Tuticorin are appellants herein. They challenge their conviction and sentences imposed upon them.2. For convenience sake, through out the judgment, let us call them A.1 and A.2.3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial runs as follows:-(i). P.Ws.1 and 2 Rajagopal and Amaravathi are spouses. They are residing in Manjalneer Kayal in Tuticorin District. Their last daughter is Subashini. She was unmarried. She was 25 years old. In Palayakayal Main road, they are running 'Sivasakthi Hotel'. Subashini used to assist her father in the hotel business. On 16/9/2010, at about 7.30 p.m., near Periyamad...
P.Kumaran Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Tahsildar of Tiruvannamalai District without reference to the disciplinary proceedings in A2/72883/92 dated 13.11.1994 pending on the file of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District and promote him as Deputy Tahsildar and grant him all service monetary benefits.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, as Deputy Tahsildar of Tiruvannamalai District without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide A2/72883/92 dated 13.11.1994, by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District. The petitioner also seeks all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant through employment...
M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.N. Mohan Raj
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party, praying for a direction to pay a sum of RS.2,71,000/- towards medical expenses, alongwith compensation of Rs.100000/-. 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.13.5.2010 in CC.No.17/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 27.1.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant / respondent, who had taken hospitalization and domiciliary hospitalization benefit policy, has undergone bye-pass heart surgery, incurring a expense of Rs.2,71,000/-, approached the opposite party for reimbursement, repudiated on the g...
The Branch Manager Canara Bank Gandhigram Branch Gandhigram, Dindigul ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2012
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties, praying for a direction to pay a sum of RS.4.5 lakhs and to return the original document and to cancel the hypothecation. 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.12.7.2010 in CC.No.34/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 25.1.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant/ respondent, obtained a housing loan of RS.3 lakhs, from the 1st opposite party, by depositing his title deed, as well as executing a mortgage deed, having SB Account No.12462. The complainant has paid the entire loan amount, f...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »