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.
Ms. the Sangli Bank Limited Vs. Ms. Tubec Blue Metals and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
(Minors represented by Guardian and Mother Mrs.Vanajakumari). Respondents/Defendants Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2003 passed in O.S.No.135 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III) at Coimbatore.JUDGMENT1. (Judgment of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI, J.,) Being dissatisfied with the rate of interest awarded in O.S.No.135 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore, dated 11.07.2003, the Plaintiff-Bank has preferred this appeal.2. First Defendant-M/s.Tubec Blue Metals, a partnership Firm with N.Thangavelu/second Defendant and Subramanyam as its partners was sanctioned a term loan of Rs.1.88 Lakhs on 23.08.1990 by the Coimbatore Branch of Plaintiff-Bank, which is now merged with ICICI Bank Limited. Since the borrowers did not repay the amount, Plaintiff-Bank has filed the suit claiming a su...
C.Aravindan. Vs. D.Kathirvelu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the Judgement and Decree passed in R.C.A.No.3 of 2007 by the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee on 17.10.2008, reversing the Judgement and Decree passed by the District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 2001 on 14.9.2006.ORDER1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/ landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.35 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ambattur for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. That application was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondent/ landlord in R.C.A.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authoritty-cum- Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee was allowed and against that this revision is filed by the revision petitioner/ tenant.2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that admittedly the tenanted property consist of two portions and the revision petitioner is occupy...
Tamil Nadu Cable T.V. Operators Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Television Cables Installation Regulation Rules 2000 framed by the second respondent and notified in G.O.Ms.No.58, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAIV), dated 4.5.2000 as ultravires illegal and invalid so far as the Petitioner is concerned and directing the respondents to issue appropriate directions to the Commissioner/Executive Authorities of the Municipalities and Village Panchayats to exercise their powers only in accordance with the law.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Television Cables Installation Regulation Rules 2000 framed by the second respondent and notified in G.O.Ms.No.58, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAIV), dated 4.5.2000 as ultravires illegal and invalid so far as the Petitioner is concerned and directing the respond...
K.Krishnamoorthy Vs. Investment Trust of India Limited.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
COMMON JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J.1. Challenge in these appeals is the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2003 in O.S.No.7731 of 1996 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Cviil Court, Chennai, in which the trial Court directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,87,563/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.2. The 2nd defendant is the appellant in A.S.No.65 of 2012 and the 4th defendant is the appellant in A.S.No.135 of 2005. The 1st defendant is the Private Limited Company and defendants 2 to 4 are the directors of 1st Defendant Company. On 12.4.1985, the plaintiff leased out certain machineries to the 1st defendant Company under Ex.A.2 equipment lease agreement dated 12.4.1985 on rental basis. For first sixty months, rent is payable at the rate of Rs.8,675/- per month and thereafter at Rs.100/- per annum till the equipments become scrap. The 1st monthly rental was payable on 12.5.1985 and the subsequent monthly rentals ...
Ms. Lot Anwesha Engineering. Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the Notice G.D.No.338/2011-12 dated 20.01.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to release the Goods Vehicle detained as per that notice, order payment of adequate monetary compensation for the inconvenience and financial loss caused to the petitioner on account of such unlawful detention of the Goods Vehicle.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the notice, dated 20.1.2012, issued by the second respondent and to order the release of the goods vehicle, which had been detained, as per the said notice, and to order payment of compensation for the inconvenience and the financial loss caused to the petitioner, du...
A.Kathiravan Vs. the District Survey Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to survey measure and mark the boundaries of the schedule property in accordance with law as requested in the representation dated 16.08.2011 of the petitioner and further directing the 2nd respondent to give appropriate protection if so required by the 1st respondent in carrying out the above survey and measurement.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the natuer of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to survey measure, and mark the boundaries of the schedule property in accordance with law, as requested vide representation dated 16.08.2011 and further to direct the 2nd respondent to give appropriate protection, if so required by the 1st respondent in carrying out the survey and measurement.2. It is submitted by the petitioner that immovable property to the extent o...
M.Ananthammal Vs. the Chairman.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the third respondent in his proceedings f.vz;.204253/36| cepm/vk; gp 2/th.Btiy/11 ehs;_08.02.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to any lower post on compassionate grounds.ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is challenging the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings f.vz;.204253/36| cepm/vk; gp 2/th.Btiy/11 ehs;_08.02.2010 and consequently seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to any lower post on compassionate grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband G.Senthurpandi, was employed as Mazdoor Grade-II, Pasuvanthanai, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Tuticorin District. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and hails...
Ramasamy at Traffic Ramasamy Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the 4th respondent from putting up construction of multi-storied building at No.153/156, Peters Road, Chennai 600 006 pursuant to the illegal planning permission accorded by the 2nd respondent under file No.C3/12313/2010.ORDER1. The Hon ble Chief Justice & T.S.Sivagnanam, J.This pro bono publico has been filed by the petitioner to restrain the 4th respondent from putting up unauthorised construction of multi-storied building at No.153/156, Peters Road, Chenani 600 006 pursuant to the illegal planning permission accorded by the 2nd respondent.2. It is stated that the 4th respondent is putting up a multi-storied residential apartment consisting of 17 floors in the above stated address, after obtaining planning permission from the 2nd respondent CMDA. It is stated that the planning permission was granted for the construction of residential apartment covering 22.68% of th...
Ms.Hindustan Incorporation Vs. the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in S.P.No.55/11 in A.P.VAT.No.39/11 dated 8.2.2012 quash the same and further direct the first respondent to grant an absolute stay for the balance of tax and entire penalty amount without insisting of bank guarantee pending disposal of the appeal on the files of the first respondent.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. 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 the order of the first respondent, dated 8.2.2012, made in S.P.No.55/2011 in A.P.VAT.No.39/2011, is modified, permitting the petitioner to furnish a personal bond f...
A.Maria Singam Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the relief stated therein.O R D E R1. The petitioners challenges the order passed by the second respondent dated 20.9.2001.2. The petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis. Thereafter, they were placed in consolidated pay of Rs.900/- vide order dated 2.1.1998. In pursuance of G.O.No.199 dated 12.9.1997, and the Resolution No.1 dated 31.12.1997 of the Establishment Committee, a policy decision was taken by the State of Tamil Nadu, to grant regular pay scale to the employees working on consolidated pay. In view of Government instruction issued vide G.O.No.84 dated 21.5.1998, the petitioners were granted regular pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200.3. The respondents without issuing any show cause notice, cancelled the order of regular pay scale and placed the petitioners again in consolidated pay of Rs.1500/-.4. The impugned order is challenged, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »