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.
Karunamoorthy Vs. the Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
PRAYERPetition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.B2/9151/2010 dated 29.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to sanction the increment, Selection Grade, Special Grade from the date of his regularization with effect from 30.09.1986 as full time Craft Teacher with attendant monetary and other benefits including retirement benefits, within a reasonable time and pass such further or other orders.ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.B2/9151/2010 dated 29.08.2011 and consequently, direct the second respondent to sanction increment, Selection Grade, Special Grade from the date of his regularization with effect from 30.09.1986, as full time Craft Teacher with attendant monetary and o...
Ms.Cooper Bussmann India Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in Order in Original No.18229/2012 dated 31.1.2012, in F.No.S50/31/2001-SVB in Job No.19191/2012-SVB (impugned order) passed by the respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that he would prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original No.18229/2012, dated 31.1.2012, before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, since, no further orders are necessary, the writ petition stands closed. However, it is made clear that if an appeal is filed by th...
Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Vs. C.P. Aqua Culture (India) Pvt. Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
JUDGMENT(Delivered by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 26466 of 2009 wherein and by which the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent seeking for a direction to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to pass detailed order in line with the pronouncement made in the open Court and gist of the decision recorded and signed on 04.6.2009 in Appeal No. C/07/2009, was allowed, the Department has come up with the present appeal.2. From the materials, it is seen that the appeal filed by the first respondent, a private company, in Appeal No. C7/2009 before the second respondent Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'Appellate Tribunal'] as against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai dated 10.11.2008, was posted for hearing before the Appellate Tribunal on 04.6.2009 and after hearing the detailed arguments from both sides, the Appellate Tribunal pronounced the o...
Murugan Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
COMMON ORDER PROLOGUE :1. When Berlin Wall crumpled , no one wept for its fall. On the other hand, people of both sides were joyous and were celebrating it. The souvenirs collected from the ramparts of the ideological barrier are even now kept in many homes all over World.2.But that will not be a case where human walls erected on the basis of colour or creed or caste. When colored people of the USA were denied dignity and equal treatment in transport, Rosa Park, a brave black woman, led a successful protest against apartheid and blatant discrimination. On the Montgomery March, the champion of civil rights in America Martin Luther King had to say this : You know, my friends, there comes a time when people get tired of being trampled over by the iron feet of oppression. There comes a time, my friends, when people get tired of being plunged across the abyss of humiliation, where they experience the bleakness of nagging despair. There comes a time when people get tired of being pushed out ...
The Branch Manager Vs. Geetha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
Prayer:- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the award and Decree dated 12.02.2004 made in MCOP.Nos.435/2001 and 9/2002 by the learned Sub Judge (MACT) Krishnagiri.JUDGEMENT1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, against the award and Decree dated 12.02.2004 made in MCOP.Nos.435/2001 and 9/2002 by the learned Sub Judge (MACT) Krishnagiri.2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals, are as follows:-The deceased G.Ramesh in MCOP.No.435/2001 and the deceased B.C.Ravikumar in MCOP.No.9/2002 travelled with their goods, namely, textile goods in the Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-11-T-9027 owned by the 4th Respondent in CMA.No.4275/2005, who is the 1st Respondent in the claim petitions and insured with the Appellant Insurance Company, who is the 2nd Respondent in the claim petitions, to go back to Hyderabad in the capacity as the owners of the said goods. The said lorry was driven by its driver ...
Devika Rani Vs. the Collector.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
JUDGMENT(Delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)1. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.1.2010 in W.P.No.10482 of 2009, by which the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the proceedings of the District Collector dated 16.4.2009, by which the District Collector has informed the appellant that in spite of offering payment of ` 3.25 Lakhs as per the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.8.1998 in W.P.No.2524 of 2002, the appellant has not taken steps to receive the cheque and, therefore, directed the appellant to receive the said amount, failing which it was stated that further action would be taken.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition by the appellant are that, in the year 1920, a land measuring about 9 Cents in Survey No.293/2, Manamadurai Village, Sivaganga Taluk was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity the Act) and ultimately, the awar...
The President Vs. the District Collector.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
JUDGMENT[Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J]1. The president, Malayagoundanpatti Panchayat, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, has filed this writ appeal as against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(MD)No.13185 of 2010, dated 09.04.2011, wherein the 3rd respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The said writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the present appellant, who was the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, dismissing the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner from service, without holding any enquiry.2.It is seen from the facts narrated, the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner was employed as a Sweeper in Malayagoundanpatti Panchayat. He was dismissed from service by order, dated 21.09.2010. The grievance of the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner was that although he was kept under suspension, without holding any enquiry, he was dismissed from service. It is not disputed by the parties herein that an explanation was offered by the ...
Ramayee Ammal Vs. Ramasamy Gounder.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
PrayerSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur dated 31.10.2002 in A.S.No.48 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur dated 22.02.2002 in O.S.No.373 of 1995.JUDGMENT1. The plaintiffs in the partition suit in O.S.No.373 of 1995, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karur, are the appellants. They sought for 1/2 share in 4.93 acres situate in Thukkachi Village in Karur District, comprised in S.No.298/1.2. It becomes necessary to note down certain relationships as set out in Ex.A.1 Genealogy.MUTHU GOUNDENThe issueless Thevanna Gounder adopted Natchimuthu, son of his brother Alakianna Gounder.3. According to first plaintiff, wife of late Ramasamy, the suit property belonged to her husband. During his life time, as between him and the defendants, under Ex.A.4 partition deed dated 11.09.1992, the joint family properties were partitioned. While doi...
S. Sivananthavadivel Vs. the District Collector.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to grant license to the petitioner to quarry the stones from the patta land in Survey Nos.1033/A1A, 1033/C1, 1034/A1, 1035/3 measuring to an extent of 3.57.0 hectares situated in Vellakoil Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that it would suffice if the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated, 25.09.2011, for the renewal of the permission to continue the quarrying operations, in the patta land, bearing Survey Nos.1033/A1A, 1033/C1, 1034/A1, 1035/3, belonging to the petitioner, in Vellakoil Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that...
V.Manimekalai Vs. the District Educational Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
PrayerWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to the impugned charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.78/2011-12 dated 14.06.2011 and quash the same.ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a charge memo issued by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 14.06.2011.2.The case of the petitioner is that she is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent-school, which is a private school, receiving grant in aid from the Government. The petitioner is working in the second respondent-school from 04.06.1997. She has passed B.A.,(History), B.Ed., M.A.,(History), B.Lit(Tamil) and M.A.,(Tamil) and as such she is qualified for being considered for appointment to the post of Tamil Pandit as well as P.G. Assistant (Tamil) in the second respondent-school. On 01.09.2008, a vacancy arose in the post of Tamil Pandit in the second respondent-school, due to prom...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »