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.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vs. T.Vijaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award dated 26.07.2004 made in WC.No.601/2002 by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Salem.JUDGEMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Erode against the award dated 26.07.2004 made in WC.No.601/2002 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Salem, thereby awarding a sum of Rs.2,56,660/- with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit in the event of the Appellant Insurance Company failing to deposit the compensation within thirty days.2. The claimants 1 to 4, who are the wife, daughters and mother of the deceased Thangamuthu, filed the above said claim application under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act for grant of compensation for the death of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was employed under the 5th Respondent as a Driller in the Rig Unit of M/s.Cauvery Borewells ...
P.Venkatesan Vs. the Managing Director.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein their men, agents, servants, subordinates or any other person or persons claiming through them or authorized by them from in any manner, shifting the IMFL Shop No.661 of Chennai South Region and the Bar attached therewith from the premises bearing Door No.2 and 1A respectively of Venkatraman Salai, Choolai Pallam, MGR Nagar, Chennai 600 078 to any other location.O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein, their men, subordinates and other persons claiming through them from, in any manner, shifting the Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Shop No.661, of Chennai South Region, and the Bar attached therewith, from the premises bearing Door No.2 and 1A of Venkatraman Salai, Choolai Pallam, MGR Nagar, Chennai.2.At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, ...
Mr.Abdul Jabbar Vs. Mr.S.Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, against the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2011, passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai, in confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 26.04.2007, passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai.ORDER1. The tenant is the revision petitioner herein.2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003, on the file of the learned Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai, for eviction, on the ground of act of waste, owner's occupation and for demolition and reconstruction.3. Initially, the revision petitioner/tenant raised a plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, between the parties and he is in possession of the property, as a mortgagee and the learned Rent Controller, negatived the said contention and o...
N.Yogaraj Vs. Lakshmi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the order of acquittal made in S.T.C.No.445 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, dated 03.12.2011.ORDER1. The de-facto complainant, based on whose information a case was registered on the file of the Dindigul Taluk Police Station as Crime No.702 of 2010, and the final report submitted therein was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul as S.T.C.No.445 of 2010, has come forward with the present Criminal Revision Case against the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the respondents 1 to 4, who figured as the accused No. 1 to 4.2. The prosecution case proceeds as follows:On 06.08.2010, at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.2-Kala was doing house-hold work and at that point of time, all the respondents 1 to 4(A1 to A4) abused P.W.2 using filthy language, assaulted her with sticks and brooms and caused simple injuries. The said occurrence was w...
P.P.Murugan Vs. the Chairman.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Common Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of 'Live Stock Inspector'.COMMON ORDER1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Live Stock Inspector.2. The petitioners are graduates in B.Sc., Rural Development Science with specialization in Animal Husbandry and belong to Scheduled Caste. The petitioners got themselves registered with the employment exchange on 20.08.1990 and 08.02.1999.3. The case of petitioners is that advertisement was published on 29.09.2001, for recruitment of 250 Live Stock Inspectors through District Employment Office throughout Tamil Nadu. The petitioners, being fully eligible, their names were forwarded to the respondents, by the employment exch...
Sivasubramania Battar Vs. the Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
PrayerWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.956/2012/AA6, dated 23.02.2012 and quash the same as illegal, ultravires and unconstitutional and for other consequential reliefs.ORDER1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 23 February, 2012, on the file of the third respondent, whereby and whereunder, the fifth respondent was appointed to perform the poojas from 18th to 20th day of Tamil month.BRIEF FACTS:2. According to the petitioner, his father was granted the privilege to do pooja Murai on the strength of the judgment and decree dated 08 December, 1971 in O.S.No.287 of 1969, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam, as confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 06 November, 1972, in A.S.No.23 of 1972 on the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin. The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Tiruchendur ...
S.Radhakrishnan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concerned records relating to the order of the first respondent bearing G.O.(D1) No.151, Higher Education(D1) Department dated 28.9.2001 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 6.1.1998 bearing Na.Ka.No.40958/R3-94 and the order of the second respondent dated 17.8.2009 bearing Ref.No.10KN1727/F1/03 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the order of the Government and consequently direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits and fix pension on the basis of the petitioner's last drawn salary (i.e.) on 31.5.1998 and pay the petitioner arrears with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the concerned records relating to the order of the first respondent bearing G.O.(D1) No.151, Higher Education(D1) Departme...
B.Subramaniam Vs. the Director.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.40493/06: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the orders of the 1st respondent in Proc.Rc.No.3103/E3/99-22 dated 12.04.2001 and as confirmed by Roc.No.691/E/2001 dated 31.08.2001 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.71418/Sa.Thi/1-1/2001-1 dated 24.09.2001 and set aside the same. Prayer in W.P.No.40494/06: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.3103/E3/99-45 dated 12.04.2001 and as confirmed by Proc.Roc.No.691/E/2001 dated 31.08.2001 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent in Proc.Na.Ka.No.71418/Sa.Thi/1-1/2001-1 dated 24.09.2001 and set aside the same.C O M M O N O R D E R1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature ...
Padmaja Ashok Vs. Dr.E.Rajyasree and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
JUDGMENT1. The second defendant in the suit filed this appeal as against the judgement and decree dated 4.8.2000 passed by the learned the V Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in O.S.No.1927 of 1996, which was filed for declaration and for obtaining delivery of vacant possession of the property described in the schedule of the plaint.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:(a) The first plaintiff-Dr.E.Rajyasree in the suit was represented by her power of Attorney-Mr.A.Jayagopal, who also represented the minor second plaintiff minor E.Navin Emmadi as his next friend. The plaintiffs filed the suit originally as against D1-the father-in-law of the first plaintiff, so to say, the father of her deceased husband, namely, Venkatakrishna Emmadi, with the fol...
H.Bheeman Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records, pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings D.O./820/2001-C.No.H1/PR 88/92 dated 15.08.2001 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority in treating the period from 01.12.1999 to 27.03.2001, as the period spent on leave.2. The petitioner, while working as Police Constable, was issued a charge memo under Section 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Standing Orders (Discipline and Appeal Rules). The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges, but the competent authority disagreed with the enquiry officer and held the petitioner guilty of charge and consequently imposed a major punishment of compulsory retirement.3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of punishment, approached the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which while upholding the finding of guil...