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.
K.S.Palanichamy Vs. the State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, against the order, dated 10.10.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2645 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for TNPID Act, Madurai.ORDER1. The revision has been preferred under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the order, dated 10.10.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.2645 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for TNPID Act, Madurai.2. It is seen that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.No.2645 of 2011 had been filed by the respondent herein before the Court below under Section 167 (3) Cr.P.C, seeking police custody of the petitioner / accused for four days.3. It is an admitted fact that the case was registered against the petitioner / accused under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act in Crime No.2 of 2011 by the respondent. In connection with the criminal case, the petitioner / accused was arrested by police and remanded to judicial custody.4. As per the prosecuti...
Tvl.Prompt Copier Services Vs. the Special Committee Under Section 16d
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in SCP No.53/2011, dated 4.11.2011, and connected proceedings of the second respondent in TNGST 3002383/2005-06, dated 28.3.2007, quash the same as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and direct the first respondent to furnish the xerox copies of the D7 records and afford an opportunity to explain the nature of the transactions by way of objections and pass orders in accordance with law.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if impugned order of the first respondent, dated 4.11.2011, is set aside and if the second respondent, the assessing authority, is directe...
Karuppayammal Vs. Gurusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.31 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Erode dated 29.07.2003 in reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.868 of 1994 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge (In-charge) Erode, dated 12.10.1999.JUDGMENT1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.31 of 2001 dated 29.07.2003 in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge (Incharge) Erode, made in O.S.No.868 of 1994 dated 12.10.1999 in decreeing the suit.2. The appellants are plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants before the trial court.3. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint filed before the trial court would be as follows:-The suit properties are self-acquired properties of Marappa Gounder. The plaintiffs are his daughters and the 1st defendant is his son, 2nd defendant is the wife and the 3rd defendant is anot...
The Management Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Labour.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Approval Petition No.221/04 dated 14.12.2005 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner is a State owned Transport Corporation having Headquarters at Vellore. In this Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge an order passed by the 1st respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) in Approval Petition No.221 of 2004 dated 14.12.2005. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent declined to grant approval for the dismissal against the 2nd respondent dated 14.4.2004.2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 17.4.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim injunction subject to the condition that the petitioner Corporation shall pay the last drawn wages to the 2nd respondent starting from April 2007 and continue to pay till the disposal of the Writ Petition. Since the petitioner has not filed the documents made avai...
H.Syed Yusuff Ali. Vs. R.Savariappan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside the order dated 21.9.2011 passed in RCA No.4 of 2011 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai against RCOP No.1413 of 2009 on the file of the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.O R D E R1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/ landlord filed an application for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.1413 of 2009 on the file of the 15th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai on the ground of act of waste, causing nuisance and for owner's occupation.2. The learned Rent Controller rejected the case of act of waste and ordered eviction on the ground of causing nuisance and owner's occupation and the same was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.4 of 2011 on the file of 8th Court of Small Causes, Chennai and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitte...
Kaarmukhilan(Alias) Periyasaame. Vs. Mrs.Chandra Vadivu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
JUDGMENT1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff in the suit, as against the judgement and decree dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Principal District Court, Villupuram, in O.S.No.88 of 2007, which was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell.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:(i) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for specific performance based on the agreement to sell dated 16.4.2007, which emerged between the plaintiff on the one side and the defendants on the other side, whereby, the latter agreed to sell in favour of former the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,75,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance by the plaintiff to the defendants. Subsequently, another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- als...
Ms.Mettur Spinning Mills Ltd Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the letter of Intimation in the nature of summons dated 15.2.2012 Na.Ka.No.3352-2011-D issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner is a spinning Mill. In this Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge a Notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Dam, Salem District dated 15.2.2012. The letter itself reads it is an information letter.2. It is seen from the letter that in front of the petitioner's factory gate, the workers have planned a continuos token fast with reference to the reopening of the Mill and also to give monetary benefits. The Revenue Divisional Officer has recorded that the mill has become sick and it has been taken over and therefore the workers, who were aggrieved by the closure of the mills, were continuously petitioning the various authorities. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer...
Tamilnadu Private Industrial Training Centre. Vs. the Director General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the circular issued by the 1st respondent in DGET-7/24/2011-MES/IS dated 05.07.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to settle the claim for reimbursement of Training and Testing fee to the members of the petitioner association for conducting the Modular Employable Skills (MES) course under Skill Development Initiative Scheme (SDI scheme).O R D E R1. PetitionerTamilnadu Private Industrial Training Centre and Industrial Schools Association, has moved this court with a prayer for issuance for writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.07.2011, passed by the Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour.2. The impugned order issued by the Government of India is addressed to Director of Employment and Training, Guindy, chennai reads as under: DGET-7/24/2011MES/ISGovernment of Ind...
The Divisional Manager Vs. M.Jayanthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2008 made in MCOP.No.268/2007 by the learned Principal District Judge (MACT) Vellore.JUDGEMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, Vellore against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2008 made in MCOP.No.268/2007 by the learned Principal District Judge (MACT) Vellore.2. The necessary facts leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are that the deceased Mahadevan was working as a Coolie. On 3.3.2007 at 8.30 a.m., the deceased was travelling in the lorry as a loadman. The driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the top of the lorry and sustained multiple grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to the K.H.Apollo Hospital Melvisharam and from there, he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Vellore, where he succumbed to injuries. The cla...
A.N.Murthy Vs. the Director General of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take appropriate action against the sixth respondent herein and as well as the 2nd and 3rd respondent herein based on the petitioners' representation dated 05.8.2011 and to restore petitioners' possession of the property by removing tresspassers in S.F.No.76/3 of Eetiveerampalayam village, Tirupur Taluk and District.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Director General of Police / the first respondent to take appropriate action against the sixth respondent as well as against the Superintendent of Police, the Inspector of Police on the representation dated 05.8.2011 and to restore petitioners' possession of property by removing trespassers in S.F.No.76/3 of Eetiveerampalayam village, Tirupur Taluk and District.2. The reading of the prayer it...