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.S.T.Azhagusundaram Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 18.1.2012 and pass appropriate orders to retain the TASMAC Shop No.5640, at Door No.4/6, Ariya Nattu Street, Velankanni, Keezhvelur Taluk, Nagapattinam District.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.1.2012, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, to retain the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Shop No.5640, located at Door No.4/6, Ariya Nattu Street, Velankanni, Keezhvelur Taluk, Nagapattinam District.3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had placed before this Court an order, dated 14.6.2011, passed by ...
K.Chandrasekaran Vs. the Managing Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The present writ appeal is filed against the order of learned Single Judge, dated 06.03.2012, made in W.P.(MD)No.2706 of 2012, rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant herein seeking to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent, namely The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation, dated 25.02.2012.2.The appellant herein was granted Franchise Rights in respect of an Hotel run by the 1st respondent herein. As per the terms of the franchise agreement, dated 10.09.2007, in case of any dispute, the franchisor shall refer the dispute to an Arbitrator, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the parties agreed to abide by the decision of the Arbitrator.3.It is stated that on 22.09.2011, a notice was issued by the respondents in accordance with the Arbitration Clause No.25, stating that the appellant herein had occupied additional space without ...
N.M.Gopal Reddy Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Notice No.1007 dated 22.7.2002 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, irregular and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent not to make any illegal claim or demand, except in accordance with the rule of law.ORDERThis writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Notice No.1007 dated 22.7.2002 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, irregular and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent not to make any illegal claim or demand, except in accordance with the rule of law.2. The issue raised by the writ petitioner is that the property tax has been demanded without giving details or basis for such demand. Earlier, this Court has passed an order in W.P.No. 1185 of 2001 directing the respondent as follows:- T...
On Load Gears Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.8045 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the files of the third respondent herein in S.T.A.No.498/2005, dated 12.2.2008 (1998-1999) and quash the same.Prayer in W.P.No.8046 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the files of the third respondent herein in S.T.A.No.705/2005, dated 12.2.2008 (2000-2001) and quash the same.Prayer in W.P.No.8047 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the files of the third respondent herein in S.T.A.No.706/2005, dated 12.2.2008 (1999-2000) and quash the same.Prayer in W.P.No.8048 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the files of the third respondent herein in S.T.A....
R.Thiagarajan Vs. State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.7006 of 2011: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the respondents in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (salary section) Department dated 26.2.2011 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and quash the same and consequently direct he respondents to grant the salary benefits and emoluments as granted under G.O.Ms.No.283, Finance (salary Section) Department dated 26.8.2010.COMMON ORDER1. These Writ Petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 5.3.2012.2. All these Writ Petitions question the validity of the order issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.2.2011 and after setting aside the same seek for grant of salary benefits as granted earlier by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.324, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.8.2010.3. Heard the arguments of M/s.S.M.Subramanian, N.Subramanian, MA...
Manivannan Vs. the Tamilnadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus to forbear the 1st respondent from giving electricity service connection for the schedule property in the name of the 2nd respondent or his nominees for the scheduled property.O R D E R1. Petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ, in the nature of mandamus, infact is seeking a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the 1st respondent from giving electricity connection to the schedule property in the name of 2nd respondent or his nominees.2. The submission of the petitioner is that the grand father of the petitioner late Valmoorthy had purchased a property measuring 38 cents in S.No.268, No.59, Mogappair village, Ambattur Taluk, thiruvallur district from Roop Narayanan by way of registered sale deed dated 15.02.1960. The grand father of the petitioner with his family was in possession of the property.3. Grand father of the petitioner died intestate...
Ranjithkumar Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 21.12.2010 of learned Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C.No.58 of 2010 convicting and sentencing the appellants.JUDGMENTP.DEVADASS,J.1. Appellants 1 and 2, who are A.1 and A.2, in Sessions Case No.58 of 2010 were found guilty under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, who has convicted them to life and fined Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.2. For convenience sake, throughout the judgment, appellants 1 and 2 shall be called as A.1 and A.2.3. The prosecution case may briefly be stated as under:(i) P.W.1 Perumayee's son is Mayavan. He married his uncle Rengan's daughter Ratha @ Anuratha (A.2). They were residing in door No.8/208, near Bagavathiamman kovil, Kattur, Thirukampuliyur, in Krishnarayapuram Taluk, in Karur District. In one part of his house, he is running his tea shop. They have three daughters and one son. P.W.1 is also re...
K.K.Ravichandran Vs. the Regional Transport Authority.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the original Telco Mini Bus bearing registration No.TN-20-E-7286 which was seized on 1.11.2011 to the petitioner.O R D E R1. Mr.M.L.Mahendran, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice 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 respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 29.11.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. M.JAICHANDREN J.,3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, 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 respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 29.11.2011, on merits and in accordance with l...
M.Vetrivel Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to return the petitioner's Driving Licence bearing No.DL No.TN 36 19940001950 which is valid upto 07.08.2012, forthwith.O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to return the petitioner's Driving Licence bearing No.DL No.TN 36 19940001950 which is valid upto 07.08.2012, forthwith.2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.3.At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had placed before this Court a letter, dated 27.02.2012, issued by the respondent stating that the respondent had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, under Section 19 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for causing an accident, punishable under Section 304(A) of Ind...
K.P.Perumal Vs. the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the Board of Directors bearing Proceedings No. DD/09-10 dated 8.2.2010 together with minutes dated 06.11.09, 9.12.09 and 29.1.2010 of the 1st respondent Corporation to quash the same as being illegal malafide arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to the findings of the Learned Enquiry Officer dated 21.10.2009 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as the charge contained in the charge sheet dated 7.4.2003 is not proved with all attendant benefits including seniority and monetary benefits, award costs.O R D E R1. The petitioner has impleaded The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter called as 'the Corporation') twice, by showing it as respondent nos.1 & 2.2. The petitioner joined the Corporation, as Assistant General Manager in the year 1987...