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.
Sapna Vs. B.Pradeep Kumar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
JUDGMENTM.VENUGOPAL,J.1. The Appellant has projected this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Order dated 07.05.2009 in O.P.No.577 of 2007 passed by the Learned II Additional Family Court Judge [I/c of I Additional Principal Family Court Judge], Chennai, in dismissing the Original Petition holding that the Appellant/Petitioner (Wife) is not entitled for divorce as prayed for in the petition since she has not established that the Respondent/Husband has committed cruelty towards her.2.The Learned II Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai, while passing the order in O.P.No.577 of 2007 dated 07.05.2009, has opined that the Appellant/Petitioner has not established the mental and physical cruelty, torture and harassment caused by the Respondent/ Husband and his family members, by examining the witnesses and also she has not proved by examining witness to whom she has handed over the dowry of Rs.50,000/-; in regard to the allegation of the Appellant that the Respondent/Husband's mother ...
Ms. P.M.P. Textiles Spinning Vs. the Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent herein to permit the petitioner to pay the entire arrears of Tax amounting to Rs.5,51,813/- relating to the assessment year 2008-2009 under the CST Act 1956 in 15 equated monthly installments.O R D E R1. Mr.A.R.Jayaprathap, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent had submitted that the entire arrears of tax, amounting to Rs.5,51,813/-, may be directed to be paid by the petitioner, in ten equated monthly installments, beginning from 20.3.2012.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had consented to pay the entire arrears of tax amount, as stated by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.5. In view of the above, the pe...
Noorul Islam Centre for Higher Vs. the University Grants Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The present writ appeal is filed as against the order, dated 01.11.2011, passed in W.P.(MD)No.9191 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.2.The appellant/writ petitioner is a Deemed University, under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act,1956. Admittedly, the writ petition filed before this Court was not directed against the University Grants Commission or against the Director of Technical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, or for that matter, even not against the Secretary to Government. But, the appellant herein filed the writ petition as against an Association, namely The Association of Indian Universities, the 2nd respondent herein, seeking to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 22.09.2010, informing the appellant that membership for any University in the said Association is restricted to those Universities who have a standing of five years and more and they should be registered under Section 2(f) ...
Thanga Sarojini Vs. Jacob.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin passed in A.S.No.192 of 1992 dated 12/7/1996, confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin passed in O.S.No.267 of 1991 dated 30/6/1992.JUDGMENT1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.267 of 1991, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, who was also the unsuccessful appellant in A.S.No.192 of 1992, on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin is the appellant.2. The suit property is western 40 cents out of 80 cents situate in Siruthandanalloor in Tuticorin District.3. Yovan Nadar is son of Annamammal and Yusuf Nadar. Yovan married twice. Ebenezer Pandian and Joseph Jebamani and Saral are his children through his first wife Thangammal. Ebenezer Pandian's daughter is plaintiff Thangasarojini. Defendants 1 to 7 and Isaac are Yovan's sons through his second wife Thangarathinammal. Yovan's mother as well as his wives have p...
The Secretary to Government Vs. R.Karunanithi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
PRAYERWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.12.2010 made in WP(MD).No.8501 of 2009 on the file of the learned single Judge of this Court.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. This writ appeal is as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14.12.2010 in WP(MD).No.8501 of 2009, wherein, the respondent herein sought for quashing of the order of punishment passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 30.07.2008 and the consequential order passed by the Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, the first appellant herein, in G.O.(D) No.241, Commercial Taxes and Registration A1 Department dated 20.05.2009, rejecting the writ petitioner's appeal on the order of punishment.2. The respondent herein/writ petitioner, who worked as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, was visited with a charge memo issued by the second appellant herein, alleging five charges said to have ...
S.J.Valli at S.Valliammal Vs. the Vice Chancellor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner made in her representation dated 9.2.2012 for regularization of her services in the post of Computer Operator in the respondent University as was done in the cases of all the Technical Staff working in the respondent university.ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent university to consider her representation, dated 9.2.2012 for regularization of her services in the post of the Computer Operator in the respondent University as was done in the case of the Technical staff working in the university and to pass appropriate orders.2.When the matter came up on 2.3.2012, this court directed notice to be issued to the standing counsel for the respondent University Ms.Narmada Sampath for filing counter. Subsequently, a counter affidavit, dated ...
Hemalatha Vs. the Superintendent of Central.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
ORDER1. The Writ Petition, at the instance of the wife of a remand prisoner now lodged at Central Jail, Trichirappalli, seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Superintendent of Central Prison, to transfer the remand prisoner to any of the private Speciality Hospitals at Trichy and more specifically, Geethanjali Hospital, Trichy for immediate medical attention and assistance at her cost.BRIEF FACTS:2. The petitioner is the wife of one V.Dhivaharan, accused in Crime Nos.23 of 2012 and 24 of 2012 on the file of Edayur Police Station and Needamangalam Police Station, respectively. The accused was arrested on 02 February, 2012 and thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody. According to the petitioner, the remand prisoner is the Founder and Correspondent of a Women's College at Mannargudi Village and he is also a Philanthropist with deep roots in the Society.3. The bail applications preferred before the Sessions Court, Thiruvarur and the High Court were dismissed.4. According to the p...
S.Ammasai Vs. the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.5487 of 2009: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to appoint the petitioner in the regular time scale of pay in the available regular post with effect from 1.7.1997 in the Periyanagamam Town Panchayat. (Prayer amended as per order, dated 12.4.2011, by NPVJ in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.5487 of 2009). Prayer in W.P.No.5488 of 2009: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to appoint the petitioner in the regular time scale of pay in the available regular post with effect from 1.7.2001 in the Periyanagamam Town Panchayat. (Prayer amended as per order, dated 12.4.2011, by NPVJ in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.5488 of 2009).COMMON ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. The above writ petitions have been filed praying that ...
P.Arumugam Vs. the State.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to call for the records relating to the order dated 22.07.2011, passed in Crl.M.P.No.639 of 2011 in C.C.No.3 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli and to set aside the same as illegal and discharge the petitioner from the criminal charges levelled against him.ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 22.07.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.639 of 2011 in C.C.No. 3 of 2011, on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate NO.II, Tirunelveli.2. The said case was taken on file based on the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.1 of 2010, registered on the file of C.C.I.W., C.I.D, Tirunelveli, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 477(A) r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. based on the complaint of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, a case was registered on the...
The Proprietor Vs. the Chairman.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2012
ORDERELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.1. The petitioner was issued with necessary consents by the first respondent on 13.11.2006 for establishment of a stone crushing unit at S.No.185/1 and 3, Jagir Karupalli Village, Denkanikota Taluk, Krishnagiri District.2. Earlier, the first respondent/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had issued guidelines for establishment of new/proposed stone crushing units, by B.P.No.4, dated 2.7.2004 and B.P.No.55 dated 6.10.2005. As per the said Board Proceedings, no new/proposed stone crushes should be located within 500 metres from any National Highways or State Highways or 'inhabited site' or educational institutions and other public offices and religious importance and the minimum distance between new/proposed stone crushes should be 1 km., to avoid dust pollution influence of one over the other.3. These two proceedings were challenged before this Court in W.P.No.1560 of 2006 and 12264 of 2006, by some affected crushing units and obtained an order of stay, dated 20....
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »