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.
M.Kamaraj Vs. the Chief Immigration Officer.
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 in No.4/FRRO/2010(PS) dated 30.03.2011 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to give No Objection certificate for the immigration clearance to go for Srilanka.O R D E R1. Petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 30.03.2011, passed by the Bureau of Immigration, declining the request of the petitioner for issuance of No Objection Certificate to travel abroad and to issue immigration clearance for travelling to Srilanka. The impugned order reads as under:No 4/FRRO/2010(PS)-687 Bureau of Immigration(MHA) Government of IndiaChennai-600 006To: Shri M.KamarajS/o MunirathinamNo.40, Uppukara StreetWalajapetVellore-632513Sir,Please refer to your representations dated 26.01.2010 and 18.05.2010 requesting for issuanc...
K. Bagyam Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to assign, allot and issue House site Patta to the petitioners as per the Beneficiaries List issued by the second respondent on 17.6.1994 in respect of the lands acquired pursuant to the notification issued by the Government in G.O.(3D) No.705, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 4.10.1994.COMMON ORDER1. These writ petition are filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to assign, allot and issue House site Patta to the petitioners as per the Beneficiaries List issued by the second respondent on 17.6.1994 in respect of the lands acquired pursuant to the notification issued by the Government in G.O.(3D) No.705, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 4.10.1994.2. The petitioner in all the writ petitions belonged to Adi Dravidar community and seek allotment of house sites as per the Beneficiaries List issued by the second respondent...
V.Rabhel Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
PrayerWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to provide police protection to live in the petitioner's own house and consequently direct the respondents 1,2,4 and 5 to remove immediately the dead body, buried in the petitioner's house.ORDER1. By consent of all the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The father of nine children, whose house has been used for burial of a victim daughter-in-law, has come before this Court for a mandamus to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to provide police protection to live in his house and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1,2,4 and 5 to remove the dead body immediately.3. According to him, he is living in his house with his wife and he belongs to Christian Nadar Community and they have five sons and four daughters. All of them have married and they are living in different places with their family members, among them, the fourt...
Ms.Karaikal Industries Forum Vs. Government of Puducherry.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
W.P.Nos.5202 to 5205 of 2012 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.19/Lab/AIL/G/2011, G.O.Ms.No.16/Lab/AIL/G/2011, G.O.Ms.No.21/Lab/AIL/G/2011 and G.O.Ms.No.18/Lab/AIL/G/2011, dated 24.08.2011 respectively on the file of the second respondent and quash the impugned orders.COMMON ORDER1. In all these four writ petitions, the petitioner is the same, i.e., M/s.Karaikal Industries Forum, represented by its President. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the G.O.Ms.No.19/Lab/AIL/G/2011, G.O.Ms.No.16/Lab/AIL/G/2011, G.O.Ms.No.21/Lab/AIL/G/2011 and G.O.Ms.No.18/Lab/AIL/G/2011, dated 24.08.2011 respectively.2.By G.O.Ms.No.19/Lab/AIL/G/2011 impugned in W.P.No.5202 of 2012, the Union Territory of Puducherry had abolished the contract labours in the process such as loading into furnance, furnace area and tapping in all manufacture of basic meta...
K.S.Ravichandran Vs. Sivananda Vijaya Lakshmi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned I Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.2623 of 2005 in O.P.No.2370 of 2004, dated 16.6.2009, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the wife towards permanent alimony.JUDGMENTS.VIMALA, J.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the I Additional Family Court at Chennai, in I.A.2623 of 2005 in O.P.No.2370 of 2004, dated 16.6.2009.2. The husband filed the petition for divorce against his wife on the ground of cruelty.3. The wife filed a petition seeking permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- in I.A.2623 of 2005.4. The Family Court granted the decree for divorce in favour of the husband. The petition filed by the wife for permanent alimony was allowed in part and the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the wife as permanent alimony.5. As against the order of grantin...
R.Srinivasan Vs. the District Collector.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to run the bar attached to shop no.4195 at 77, Vittilapuram Village, Thirukazhukundram, Kancheepuram District, on the basis of the first respondent's proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.1489/2012/V.1, dated 30.1.2012 and the consequential proceedings of the third respondent made in Se.Mu.22/A6/2012, dated Nil.2.2012 pursuant to the representation dated 10.2.2012.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 third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 10.2.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection for such an order being passed by t...
V.B.Shanmugasundari Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reckon the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Steno-Typist from the date of their initial appointment and grant promotion to them with all consequential benefits.ORDER[Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J]1. The prayer in the present writ petition is for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to reckon the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Steno-Typist from the date of their initial appointment and grant promotion to them with all consequential benefits.2.The post of Junior Assistant originally fell under Category 14 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and the post of Typist and Steno-Typist fell under Category 7. The post of Assistant, falling under Category 12 of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, was considered to be a promotional post for the feeder categories of Junior Assistants/Typists/Steno-Typi...
Krishnaveni Vs. Meera at Devaki.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8 of 1996, dated 30.12.2003 by the learned I Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai.JUDGMENTS.VIMALA, J.1. Who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased-Sairam whether it is the first plaintiff or the first defendant is the main issue to be decided. Who are entitled to receive the pensionary benefits of the deceased Sairam i.e., whether the plaintiffs 1 to 3 (the wife and the children) or the defendants 1 and 3 (the second wife and the children) is the hot issue being tried from 1996.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.8 of 1996 praying for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that the second and third plaintiffs are the legitimate sons of the deceased-Sairam and for a consequential order of injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any right whatsoever over the estate of the deceased-Sairam.3. The brief facts o...
S.Parthiban Vs. the Inspector General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order made in G.O.(2D) No.234 Home (SC) Department dated 3.6.2009 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and the consequential order made in D.No.652/2009 C.No.D1/19941/09 dated 18.6.2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.O R D E R1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order made in G.O.(2D) No.234, Home (SC) Department, dated 3.6.2009, on the file of the first respondent and the consequential order made in D.No.652/2009, C.No. D1/19941/2009, dated 18.6.2009, on the file of the second respondent imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, on the petitioner.2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined as a constable in the Tamil Nadu Police service, on 1.8.1984. During his service, he was a part of several investigation teams, which had been given the respons...
M.Mangalamary Vs. SaradhA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Civil Revision Petition No.699 of 2011 against the order dated 22.2.2010 in R.C.A.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Combatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2006 in R.C.O.P.No.304 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.Civil Revision Petition No.700 of 2011 against the order dated 22.2.2010 in R.C.A.No.52 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Combatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2006 in R.C.O.P.No.98 of 1988 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.Civil Revision Petition No.701 of 2011 against the order dated 22.2.2010 in R.C.A.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Combatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2006 in R.C.O.P.No.99 of 1988 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.COMMON ORDER1. Tenants in R.C.O.P.Nos.304 of 1987, 98 and 99 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore are the revision petition...