Chennai Court March 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.Paramasivam Vs. G.Lakshminarayanan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
JUDGMENT1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff as against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Karaikal in O.S.No.17 of 2009, which was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell.2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A r'esume of facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:a] The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance based on Ex.A1 the agreement to sell, emerged between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby, the latter agreed to sell the property described in the schedule of the plaint, in favour of the former for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,97,255/- and an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Subsequently, there were as many as 12 endorsements made by the defendant extending the period with effect from 16.06.1994 onwards...
Sri Sthalasayna Perumal Temple Vs. the Union of IndiA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
COMMON ORDER1. Sri Sthalasayna Perumal Temple, at Mahabalipuram, is an age old Hindu Temple. It is known for its rich heritage. It stands on the shore. It is a small temple with two major shrines for Lord Sthalasayana Perumal and Nilamangai Thayaar. It is believed that this is the birth place of the 2nd Azhwar - Boothathazhwar. Historians say that the architecture depicts the Pallava style and thus, it was built by Pallava Kings. It is one of the 108 Divayadesams. The said temple is under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, as per the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.The respondents 1 to 3, in exercise of power under Section 4(1) of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as the Central Act] have issued a notification expressing the intention of the Central Government to declare the said Temple as an ancient monument, which...
S.Alageswari Vs. J.Prabhakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
JUDGEMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants against the Judgement and Decree dated 17.3.2008 made in MACT.OP.No.4552/ 2002 by the learned Additional District Cum Sessions Judge (FTC-IV) (MACT) Chennai, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased minor child Muthu Kannan.2. On 22.10.2002 at about 08.30 hours, the deceased Muthu Kannan, who was aged 2 years old, was sitting near the compound wall of his house and attending nature's calls. At that time, the Van bearing Reg.No.TN-01-U-9562 owned by the 1st Respondent and insured with the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company driven in a rash and negligent manner, while turning towards his right side ran over the child sitting there causing instantaneous death. The deceased was two years old at the time of the accident and he was survived by h...
S.Santha Vs. Ms.D.Sabitha, I.A.S
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2.At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the order of this Court, dated 27.04.2011, made in W.P.No.11863 of 2006 had been complied with.3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the said statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.4.In such circumstances, since no further orders are necessary, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs....
M.JebastIn Jeyakumar Vs. V.Sathis Bruno
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
JUDGMENT1. The de-facto complainant in STC No.105 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram has approached this court by filing the present appeal against the order of the court below acquitting the respondent herein under section 256 Cr.P.C., who figured as accused before the trial court for the non-appearance of the appellant/complainant. The above said case STC No.105 of 2010 was instituted on private complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2.After issuance of summons and after the appearance of the respondent herein/accused, the case stood listed for hearing on 26.08.2011. In fact, the case was taken on file long back and since there was absence of the complainant as well as the accused and also there was absence of representation on behalf of the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate chose to pass the impugned order acquitting the respondent herein/accused under section 256 Cr.P...
Erakkammal Vs. Samugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
JUDGMENT1. The Appellants/Plaintiffs have projected the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.1998 in A.S.No.105 of 1996 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.1996 in O.S.No.164 of 1996 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur.2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.105 of 1996 (filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs), has inter alia opined tha PW1 (2nd Plaintiff) in his evidence has admitted that he knows about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.222 of 1980 after filing of the said case and no value can be given to the case of the Plaintiff that they do not know about the fifteen years case against the 1st Defendant and a natural question that arises is that as to why no action has been taken and further, after the 2nd Defendant obtaining possession of the property through Court, another que...
G.Gnanasigamani Vs. the Superintendent of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
PRAYER: This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 6144 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the proceedings No.P.R.C.No.155/2000 and C.No.AP 138/2000 dated 5.9.2000 and 4.12.2000 respectively.ORDER1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable on 12.01.1970 and was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 1999. The petitioner has won more than 40 awards in his service career.2 The petitioner was served with charge memo by the Superintendent of Police, Sankaran Koil under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules for having links with one Durai, wine shop owner and other wine shop dealers and received bribe from them for the sale of liquor illegally.3 The petitioner challenged the charge memo, on the ground that charges levelled against the petitioner was vague and not specific therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to effectively...
The Deputy Collector Vs. R.Ramkumar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. W.A.(MD) Nos.1492 and 1493 of 2011 are filed by the Deputy Collector/ District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, Tiruchirapalli, as against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.13152 and 13153 of 2011, wherein, this Court, under order dated 23.11.2011, following the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.9510 of 2011 dated 25.08.2011, held that TASMAC should consider only those applications supported with 'No Objection Certificate' from the respective land owners for location of a bar attached to the IMFL shops in Pudukottai District.2. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9510 of 2011 dated 25.08.2011 shows that the petitioner therein challenged the notification issued by the District Manager, TASMAC, Pudukottai, inviting tenders for collecting the empty bottles and selling eatables, on the ground that the District Manager had not notified the location of the individual bars. Hence, the s...
Ms.National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. VasanthA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 2.2.2006 made in MCOP.No.714/2004 by the learned Additional District Judge (MACT) Dharmapuri.JUDGEMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, Kishnagiri against the Judgement and Decree dated 2.2.2006 made in MCOP.No.714/2004 by the learned Additional District Judge (MACT) Dharmapuri, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,37,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Ilankadir, who died in the motor accident that occurred on 18.4.2004.2. The short facts are that on 18.4.2004 at about 6.15 p.m. while the deceased Ilankadir, a qualified driver employed in Selvi Travels, Pappireddipatti, was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TAA-1893 from Pappireddipatti bus stand, near Raja Hotel on Pappireddipatti-Bom...
Gowtham Chand Vs. Mohammed Jameel.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2012
ORDER1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/ Landlord filed the R.C.O.P.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller Court, Mayiladuturai under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act for fixation of fair rent and after contest the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.10,651-92 per month and rounded off to Rs. 10,650/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petitioner filed an appeal with the delay of 730 days and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the contractual rent was Rs.650/- and without any rhyme or reason the learned Rent Controller enhanced the rent to Rs.10,650/- without properly appreciating the market value of the site on which the building was constructed and the cost of construction and without providing for depreciation and the respondent/ landlord had also taken possession of the property pu...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »