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.
Lilly Vs. Tamimul Ansari.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decree in I.A.No.218 of 2011 in I.A.No.159 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2000 on the file of the District Judge, Karaikkal dated 21.9.2011 and allow the above C.R.P.O R D E R1. The defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.20 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Karaikkal are the revision petitioners.2. The 1st respondent herein is the 3rd party to the suit. The respondents 2 and 3 herein filed the above suit for partition and preliminary decree was passed on 7.6.2007. The defendants 3 and 4/ revision petitioners herein filed I.A.No.159 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2000 for passing final decree and in that application the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.218 of 2011 to implead himself in the suit stating that he purchased the property from the defendants 1 and 2 who are not the parties to the revision. That application was allowed and as against the same, this revision is filed by the revis...
Arumugam Vs. Madurai District.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
PrayerAppeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai, in S.C.No.349 of 2007 by his judgment dated 04/11/2008, and acquit the appellant from the charges.JUDGMENTP.DEVADASS ,J.1. It is a case of matricide.2. Arumugam/accused is second son of Karupayee. He married P.W.4 Deepa. They have two children. The spouses are separated. She is living in her parents house with her children. Accused is living with his mother in their house in V.Pudur in Melur Taluk in Madurai District.3. On 13.07.2006, at about 4.30 p.m., in her house, accused cut his mother with M.O.5 bill-hook. She died on the spot. It was witnessed to by her elder son P.W.1 Raman. He is also the complainant in this case. Besides him, P.Ws.2 and 3 Periakarrupan and Rajangam witnessed the occurrence. Besides their oral evidence, there is medical evidence and recovery of material object.4. In the circumstances, in the Session...
P.Poosari Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of 2nd respondent letter Nos.70823/PC/11/91-4 dated 19.12.1991 and 16279/PC/93-1 dated 09.03.1993 and the order passed by the 6th respondent Na.Ka.No.C1/3654/07 dated 30.07.2009 and the objection of 5th respondent vide Ni.Mu.No.48109/MPVI/2008 dated 11.03.2009, quash the same as illegal and direct the 6th respondent to reimburse Rs.2,07,220.00 illegally recovered from the persion benefits of the petitionerORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings whereby excess of salary paid to the petitioner sought to be recovered on the ground that the selection Grade awarded to the petitioner was not proper.2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined the municipal service as Field Assistant on 04.12.1972. He was promoted as Health Assistant and thereafter, promoted as Sanitary Inspector during the...
Ms Ensemble Infrastructure Vs. the Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TNGST/1282266/2005-06, dated 20.12.2011 and quash the impugned proceedings, dated 20.12.2011.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the revision of assessment order, dated 20.12.2011, had been passed by the respondent, regarding the payment of additional sales tax, without issuing a Revision Notice to the petitioner.3.A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that a Pre-revision Notice, dated 18.07.2011, had been issued to the petitioner, by speed post. However, it had been returned, by the postal authorities, with the endorsement Left . Thereafter, the respondent had attempted to serve notice on the petitioner, at t...
A.S.M.Balasubramanian Vs. S.P.Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
JUDGMENT1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2006 passed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.5300 of 2005, which was filed by the plaintiff 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 summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:a] The respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:- to direct the defendant to specifically perform the agreement of sale dated 26.10.1993 entered between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit property, by receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff and direct the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee and to do all...
M. Raghuvaran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
COMMON ORDER1. Seeking to quash the impugned orders dated 08.11.2011 passed by the 4th respondent dated 08.11.2011 and for a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to allow them to continue their studies in the 4th respondent College, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions.2. Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavits accompanying the Writ Petitions would run thus:(i) The petitioners, viz., M.Raghuvaran and D.Kavitha are doing I year B.C.A. Degree in the 3rd respondent College. On 07.10.2011, the petitioners attended the College as usual and at about 2.00pm, the petitioner Raghuvaran attended the Lab Class and thereafter, at about 2.30 pm, his Head of Department (HoD) Mr.Selvam and Lecturer Ponmani found mobile phone in his bag and that of one Kavitha, the other writ petitioner and earlier also, he found mobile phones in the bags of senior students, but no action was taken. Thereafter, Mr.Selvam enquired Raghuvaran and Kavitha as to why they brought mobile phones ...
Vira Properties (Madras) Pvt Ltd. Vs. Baba Enterprises.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
JUDGMENTC.NAGAPPAN, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Order dated 21.11.2011 passed in Application No.5028 of 2011 in Tr.C.S.No.998 of 2008 on the file of this Court. Respondents 1 and 2 in the application are the appellants herein.2.The case of the second respondent herein/applicant is that numerous suits were pending on the file of this Court between the parties herein and they settled the disputes by entering into a compromise on agreed terms and conditions and under the compromise decree dated 19.04.2011 in C.S.No.998 of 2008, it was agreed that a basic sum of Rs.41,00,00,000/- would be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff in the suit and it was further agreed that the appellants herein would pay the second respondent herein an additional sum of Rs.9,00,00,000/-, upon an order of regularisation for the eighth and ninth floors of the subject building from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on or before 17.10.2011 and though the second respondent herein diligently ...
Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Minor Rohini (Deceased) Rep.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
JUDGMENTK.MOHAN RAM,J1. The defendant in O.S.No.38 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court-Fast Track Court No.2, Gobichettipalayam is the appellant in the above appeal.2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking the following reliefs, namely(i) to declare that the holder of six policies bearing Nos. 761611460, 760879781, 762947489, 761611397, 762489349 and 760457429 R.Murugesan died on 18.10.2002 by accident;(ii) to direct the defendant/appellant to pay to the respondents Rs.14,32,000/- with interest, etc; and(ii) for costs.3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows :The said R.Murugesan the father of the first plaintiff had taken six policies from the defendant Corporation for a sum of Rs.7,16,000/-. All the six policies were endowment policies. As the life assured - R.Murugesan died due to heart attack, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,32,000/- together with bonus, interest, etc., to the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of th...
J.Pitchaimani Sahayarani Vs. the Chief Educational Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent District Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.4626/Aa2/05 dated 23.08.2005 (refusing approval to the petitioner's promotion as Middle Grade Graduate Teacher)and his subsequent proceedings in O.Mu.No.11240/A2/05 dated 25.02.2006 (refusing approval to the promotion as B.T. Assistant) quash the same and direct the second respondent to approve forthwith the petitioner's promotion as Graduate Teacher (Middle School) w.e.f 10.01.2005 and his further promotion as B.T.Assistant (High School) w.e.f 01.09.2005 with all salary, allowances and attendant benefits.ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the second respondent dated 23.08.2005 and the consequential proceedings dated 25.02.2006 and for further direction to the second respondent to approve the petiti...
Ramaraj Vs. T.N.V.Durairaj.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
JUDGMENT1. The first defendant, in O.S.No.14 of 2004, on the file of Additional Sub-Court, Thanjavur is the appellant.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit based on Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 26/3/2001 alleging that the appellant/ 1st defendant and second defendant have borrowed Rs.3 lakhs with 12% interest p.a., however, in spite of receipt of (Exs.A.3 and A.4 postal acknowledgments) Ex.A.2 notice they have not paid the amount.3. First defendant contended that the second defendant sought for a loan of Rs.7 lakhs for his wineshop business from one Karuppaiah, who insisted upon 1st defendant signing the promissory note as a witness. In the circumstances, six years ago, first defendant had signed in three blank promissory notes as witness and gave them to the second defendant. In view of the subsequent enmity between them, 2nd defendant with the connivance of plaintiff fabricated first defendant's signature on the revenue stamp in Ex.A.1 and filed the suit. Since it was thought that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »