Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
Mr.A.Manivelu Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to cancel the patta, which is issued in favour of the fourth respondent on the basis of his enquiry report, dated 12.08.2011, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 30.05.2011.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 third respondent to cancel the patta, issued in favour of the fourth respondent, on the basis of his enquiry report, dated 12.08.2011, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 30th May, 2011.2. The relief sought by the petitioner, viz., for cancellation of patta, which is issued in favour of the fourth respondent is covered under the Board Standing Order No.31, which reads as under:- " " To whom applications should be made:-Applications for transfer of registry may be made to the Collector or the Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!A.Manivannan Vs. the Principal Chief Conservator
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8855/2010/Pa dated 17.06.2011, and quash the same consequently directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Forester on compassionate ground as per the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.AB1/49409/2008 dated 16.08.2010.ORDERIn this writ petition the petitioner has challenged order passed by the second respondent dated 17.06.2011 and consequently seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Forester on compassionate ground as per the order of the first respondent dated 16.08.2010.2. The case of the petitioner is that his father E.Avadausangu served as a Forester under the second respondent and died on 29.01.2006 while he was in service. The petitioner being the eldest son of his father applied before the respondents on ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs.Kuppammal Vs. the Special Officer or Special Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 28.1.2011 by conducting an enquiry and to delete the other names who are not the legal heirs of the Mr.Palayam in the Town Survey Land Register.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 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 28.1.2011, by conducting an enquiry and to delete the names of persons, who are not the legal heirs of the Mr.Palayam, in the Town Survey Land Register, and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.2. The case of the petitioner is, that her father-in-law was originally the owner of 9 cents of lands comprised in S.No.475/2, Mugappair Village, Ambathur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The land was purchased from one Mr.Venugoal Mudaliar and Jayaraman Mudaliar, ...
Tag this Judgment!N.Ramasubbu Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J.)1. The writ appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.3187 of 2005 dated 17.10.2007 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 04.04.2005 and to grant all consequential benefits to the appellant.2.The appellant / writ petitioner was appointed as Grade-1 Police Constable on 15.04.1974 by direct recruitment and he was promoted as Head Constable on 13.07.1982 and then promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 25.05.1995. It is seen from the facts placed before this Court that while he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, in K.Pudur Police Station, a case in Crime No.126 of 1999 was registered against one Baskaran alias Vedigundu Baskaran for offences under the Explosive Substances Act and he was arrested on 18.12.1999 by the Inspector of Police, one Vallinayagam, to whom, the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar Vs. Prema
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment made in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 1993 dated 07.08.2006 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J1. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.10,000/- per acre to Rs.6,23,916/- per acre for the lands acquired in Kalendira village, Vaniyambadi Taluk for issuance of house site pattas to Adi-Dravidas, the Government has preferred this appeal.2. Facts in nutshell which led to the present appeal are as follows:-Originally, 1st Claimant-Prema was the owner of 2.52 acres of land - (i) S.No.83/2A 0.41.0 Hectares [1.01 acres]; (ii) S.No.83/3A 0.61.0 Hectares [1.51 acres] and the land in S.No.83/3A was divided into house plots and the 1st Claimant sold 4800 sq. ft. to each of the Claimants 2, 3, 4 and 2400 sq. ft. to each of the Claimants 5, 6, 7. For acquisition of land in S.No.83/2A 0.41.0 Hectare and S.No.83/3A 0 0.61.0 Hectare, Section 4(1) no...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Vs. Venkatasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
JUDGMENT1. Animadverting upon the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, in (i) L.A.O.P.Nos.47, 54, 55, 53, 79, 80, 83 and 86 of 1997 respectively dated 09.04.2008 and (ii) L.A.O.P.Nos. 45, 48, 50, 51 and 52 of 1997 respectively, dated 24.10.2007, the Government has filed these appeals.2. Heard Mr.S.Pasupatheeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) for the appellant in all the appeals and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for R1 in A.S.Nos.447, 448, 450 and 465 to 469 of 2011; and for R1 to R6 in A.S.No.449 of 2011. Notice to the respondents earlier ordered, but so far, notice could not be served. However, for requisitioning institution, Mr.V.Perumal represented. For others, no notice is required at all, for the reason that in similar matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLPs which were filed, challenging the orders of this Court.3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the dispos...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu. Vs. M.Senthilkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The State is on appeal as against the order of learned Single Judge, dated passed in W.P.(MD)No.674 of 2008, wherein this Court quashed G.O.Rt.No.304, Industries (MMC1) Department, dated 30.10.2007. and directed the appellants herein to permit the respondent/writ petitioner to do sand quarrying operations in Survey Nos.152/2, 177/4 in Melur village, Srirangam Taluk, pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1778 : 2006(4) SCC 517 - State of Tamil Nadu v. P.Krishnamoorthy.2.Admittedly, the respondent herein was granted quarrying lease for a period from 29.01.2002 to 28.01.2005. However, by reason of an amendment to Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral ConcessionRules, 1959, inserting Rule 38-A, inserted under G.O.Ms.No.95, Industries, dated 01.10.2003, the right of quarrying sand in Government lands and in ryotwari lands vested with the State Government to the exclusion of others and the proportionate ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Director of Health and ors Vs. Dr.R.Elango
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 3.10.2007 passed by the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, in O.S.No.25 of 2007.JUDGMENT1. The defendants in the suit filed this appeal as against the judgement and decree dated 3.10.2007 passed by the learned the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, in O.S.No.25 of 2007, which was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for recovery of money.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: (a) The plaintiff, being a doctor, filed the suit as against the State Government as well as the Central Government and Government officials for recovering the amount due payable to him for the operations conducted by him under the centrally sponsored 'Reproductive and Child Health...
Tag this Judgment!Saroja Ammal (Died) Vs. Angammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 9.3.2004 made in O.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of Additional District and Sessions judge Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by S.VIMALA,J.)1. The plaintiff is the appellant. On the death of the appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased have been added as appellants. Originally suit filed by the plaintiff for partition has been dismissed by the trial Court and as against which the appeal has been filed.2. Now the learned counsel appearing on either side represented that the matter has been settled out of Court. Therefore, recording the said statement, the Appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!C. Durairaj Vs. K.C. Vellai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Civil Revision petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C against the fair and decretal orders dated 24.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.172 of 2009 in O.S.No.193 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Polur.O R D E R1. The defendant in O.S.No.193 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Polur, is the revision petitioner herein.2.The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the revision petitioner/defendant and in that suit, the revision petitioner/defendant entered appearance through counsel. But, he did not file any written statement. Therefore, he was set ex-parte and the ex-parte decree was passed on 13.2.2001. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.172 of 2009 to condone the delay of 2958 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree and the said application was dismissed on 24.8.2009. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition has been filed.3.It is submitted by t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »