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.
V.N.Pachaimuthu Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Prayer: Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from proceeding with any enquiry against the petitioner in relation to the property situate in Survey Nos.89/1 & 89/3 Kattananthal Village Kallakurichi Taluk Villupuram District in the guise of conducting enquiry without resorting to due process of law.O R D E RThe petitioner prays for issuance of writ, in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from proceeding with any enquiry against the petitioner in relation to the property falling in Survey Nos. 89/1 & 89/3, Kattananthal Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District, without following due process of law.2. This writ petition is prima facie not competent, as this Court cannot prohibit the Police authorities to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, in case of complaint, showing cognizable offence.3. The respondent no.4 lod...
Venkatasubramaniya Chettiar Vs. Perumal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Decree and Judgment dated 25.02.2003 made in O.S.No.6 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J.Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree in O.S.No.6 of 2002 [25.02.2003] whereby the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi has decreed the suit for Partition holding that Plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit properties. Unsuccessful Defendant has preferred the appeal.2. Appellant-Defendant Venkatasubramaniya Chettiar and Respondent-Plaintiff Perumal Chettiar are the sons of Ramasamy Chettiar. The said Ramasamy Chettiar died intestate in 1956 leaving vast extent of properties in Chinnasalem, Kallakurichi and other surrounding villages. Subbulakshmi Ammal, mother of Appellant-Defendant and Respondent-Plaintiff died in 1998. During 1993, brothers are said to have divided the properties and the factum of partition was reduced to writi...
C.Manikandan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
PrayerWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by 3rd respondent Joint Director of Collegiate Education vide proceedings in O.Mu.No.9878/E3/2004 dated 03.01.2006, quash the same and further direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to approve forthwith the petitioner's appointment as Waterman in the 5th respondent college from the date of his appointment on 04.04.1996 with the staff-grant towards his salary, allowances and all attendant benefits.ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.9878/E3/2004 dated 03.01.2006 consequently, seeking for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to approve the petitioner's appointment as Waterman at the 5th respondent-college from the date of his appointment, namely, 04.04.1996 with salary and other attendant benefits.2.The case of ...
Thangavel Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
PrayerThis Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus,(a) Directing the respondents 2 and 6 to immediately lay an alternative road to our village from Kamudhi Thiruchuli main road through the adjacent path near Mandalamanickam Police Station towards south as it is the long pending demand of dalits as one of their fundamental rights.(b) Directing the 7th respondent to investigate first information report filed in Crime No.32 of 2011 against the innocent dalit members under sections 147, 153(A), 506(i) of IPC and 3 of TNPPDL Act as it is motivated to harass dalits,(c) Directing the 1st and 4th respondents to hand over the case registered in Crime No.33 of 2011 on the file of the Mandalamanickam Police, Kamudhi to the 7th respondent and directing the 7th respondent to appoint a competent officer to take up the same and investigate the case in accordance with law under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Preve...
Manickam Moopan Vs. Lakshmi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
PrayerSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 17.01.2006 in A.S.No.200 of 2004 and the Cross Appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli dated 22.06.2004 in O.S.No.37 of 2003.JUDGMENT1. Since Second Appeals Nos.912 and 913 of 2006 arise out of a common judgment rendered by the first appellate Court and the parties are same and the evidence and question of law involved are same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Admittedly, the defendant is a cultivating tenant under the plaintiffs with respect to certain lands situate in Melapandamangalam in Tiruchira-ppalli District. Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2003 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli for recovery of Rs.19,125/- towards arrears of rent. It was hotly contested by the defendant....
Natesan Engineers and Contractors. Vs. Customs, Excise, Service Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quash the impugned order, dated 8.12.2011 passed by the first respondent directing the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.4 lakhs within 6 weeks therefrom and consequently direct the 1st respondent Tribunal to dispose of the Main Appeal vide E/422/09, within the time frame without insisting for the aforesaid pre-deposit.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 8.12.2011, directing the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards penalty, within a period of six weeks therefrom and to report compliance on 31.1.2012.3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the...
P.Pethuraj Vs. the Superintending Enginee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Ka.No.30858/NP.2/VU 1/ Ko.Va.Vu/02 dated 30.10.2002 and quash the same and further direct the first and second respondent to promote the petitioner as Commercial Inspector/Line Inspector from the date on which his junior was promoted and include the petitioner's name above fourth and fifth respondent in the seniority list for further promotions and also pay all arrears of salary and financial benefit.O R D E R1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Ka.No.30858/NP.2/VU 1/ Ko.Va.Vu/02 dated 30.10.2002 and quash the same and further direct the first and second respondent to promote the petitioner as Commercial Inspector/Line Inspector from the date on which his junior was promoted and include the petitioner's name above fourth ...
Meenakshi Manimaran Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second and the third respondents and direct the 2nd respondent to convert the petitioner's property tax bearing No.10-151-1463-000014, and the 3rd respondent to convert the petitioner's CMWSSB connection No.10-151-1463000014 from Commercial to Residential Category.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 3.3.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispo...
Janahi Vs. Peter Rose.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in Crl.M.P.No.2293 of 2010 dated 11.02.2011 and set aside the same.ORDER1. This criminal revision case has been preferred against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, dated 11.02.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.2293/2010. The circumstances under which the present criminal revision case came to be filed, can be narrated in a nutshell.2. Based on the complaint of the revision petitioner, a case was registered on the file of Karungal Police Station in Crime No.276/2010 for alleged offences punishable under sections 454 and 380 IPC. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation, submitted a negative final report in the said case on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. A copy of a document purporting to be an intimation given to the ...
A.Premkumar Vs. the Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
PrayerWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.6683/2006/Voo. Va.1 dated 08.12.2009 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and directing the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as a Junior Assistant or any other competent post under him on compassionate grounds.ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the second respondent dated 08.12.2009 and consequently, seeking for a direction to the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant or in any other suitable post on compassionate grounds.2.The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as Road Roller Cleaner at the office of the 3rd respondent and died on 21.09.1996, while he was in service. The petitioner was 14 years old minor at the time of death of his father. Immediately after the death of hi...