Chennai Court April 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.
Somasundaram Super Spinning Mill. Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the file of the 1st Respondent herein ATA No.1019 (13) 2002 and to quash the order dated 25-02-2010 passed therein.ORDER1. The petitioner is a spinning mill. It was closed on 08.10.1976. In December 1977, the Government of India took over the petitioner mill under the Industries (Development Regulations) Act, 1951 and the mill was operated. However, as on 31.03.1986, there was an accumulated loss of the mill to the tune of Rs.95 lakhs. In view of the accumulated loss, the mill was at the verge of the closure. To avoid the said closure, the Government of Tamil Nadu intervened and took over the same under Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 81 of 1986 and vested in the petitioner corporation namely, Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation.2. The original owner of the mill filed W.P.No.1979 of 1988 before this ...
A.Najumunisa Vs. the Executive Officer, Gudalur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to renew lease agreement for period of another three years from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.3014 in respect of pay and use toilet situated at old bus stand, Calicut Road, Gudalur.R.SUDHAKAR, J.ORDER1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to renew lease agreement for period of another three years from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.3014 in respect of pay and use toilet situated at old bus stand, Calicut Road, Gudalur.2. Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner has already approached the Civil Court and obtained a decree in O.S.No.39 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Gudalur. The present writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to renew the lease agreement for the period of three years from ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.Rajendran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
PRAYER IN CMA.NO.627 OF 2009:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Fair and Decreetal orders dated 30.07.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.5108 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.PRAYER IN CMA.NO.628 OF 2009:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Fair and Decreetal orders dated 30.07.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.5110 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.P.DEVADASS, J.COMMON JUDGMENT1. Since both the appeals are connected on facts and on law they are tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Rajendran, claimant in MCOP.No.5108 of 2008 and his wife Pushpavalli, Claimant in MCOP.No.5110 of 2003 have travelled in the Auto Ricksha belonging to the second respondent/John Sundaresan, whi...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Radhakrshnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in C.P.NO.48/96 dated 31.07.2007 quash the same.M.JAICHANDREN, J.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the third respondent labour Court, dated 31.7.2007, made in C.P.No.48 of 1996.3. It has been stated that the first respondent employee, who had died, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, had been appointed, as a cleaner, in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, on 8.2.1954. He had been in Government service, in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, upto 30.4.1975, having completed 21 years, 2 months and 23 days of service. Prior to 11.1.1974, categories of drivers, conductors and technical staff of the said Department were governed by a separate set of Non- pensionable Servic...
Mr.S.Velmurugan and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Sugars Principal Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Proceedings No.8101/SL1/2010, dated 19.08.2011 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, irregular and without jurisdiction.K.Sharma, J.ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Proceedings No.8101/SL1/2010, dated 19.08.2011, vide which, the respondent No.1 has ordered denovo enquiry, under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is working as Cane Assistant in the second respondent Sugar Mills. A complaint was registered against one Mr.K.Kalairajan, the then Administrator of the second respondent's Sugar Mill and charges were framed, to probe into the correctness of the allegations, against him.3. The Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned a sum...
G.Narayanan Vs. G.Mohan, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against the fair and decreetal orders dated 11.04.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi in I.A.No.144 of 2010 in unfiled A.S.No....2010.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi in I.A.No.144 of 2010 in unfiled A.S.No....2010, this civil revision petition has been focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Synoptically and succinctly, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(i) The final decree was passed by the court concerned, as against which, the revision petitioner desired to file appeal. However, there was a delay of 359 days; wherefore, he filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay condoned.(ii) The said application was resisted by the respondents herein.(iii) Whereupon, the Court di...
A.Ganaselvam. Vs. the District Educational Officer, Vellore District. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records of the proceedings in orally transferring the petitioner from Thanipadi to Alapakkam on 7.6.2005 and the subsequent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5752/A2/2005, dated 24.11.2005 of the first respondent and the proceedings Na.Ka.No.1412/A1/2008, dated 7.5.2008 of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the third respondent to absorb the petitioner herein in their School Christ Jothi R.C.M. Middle School (Aided School) S.Andapapatti, Thanipadi (P) Chengam (Via), Thiruvannamalai district with due seniority and consequential benefits.K.CHANDRU, J.ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition initially prayed for setting aside the order dated 24.11.2005 passed by the first respondent, i.e., District Educational Officer, Vellore and proceedings of the second respondent, i.e., District Educational Off...
Mr.E.Ramanan Vs. the Director General of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.1613 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, with a prayer for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records, relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings RC.No.ADC/A/PR.5/96-1, dated 23.12.1999 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to restore the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.H1/CB/9522/92, D.O.No.1643/96, dated 14/08/1996, with all consequential service and monetary benefits.Vinod K.Sharma, J.ORDER1. The petitioner joined the Police service as Sub Inspector of Police, on 09th April, 1996 and was promoted as Deputy Inspector of Police in the year 1977 and thereafter, to the post of Inspector of Police, on 16th November, 1980.2. While the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, CID, on 23r...
Madura Coats Private Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
COMMON ORDER1. The orders of the respondent, calling upon the petitioner, to make payment of the dues, and appropriating the sanctioned amount of rebate towards the outstanding arrears, are under challenge in these Writ Petitions.2. Since all these Writ Petitions involve a common issue, they are being disposed of in common. For the sake of disposal, let me take the facts in W.P.No.13516 of 2011.(i) M/s.Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., Madurai, the petitioner herein is the holder of Central Excise Registration No.AABCM8279KXM005 and is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, core spun yarn and 100% SSP (Staple Spun Polyester) multiple folded yarn falling under Chapters 52, 54, 55, respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is also a Star Trading House and has paid crores in tax to the Government.(ii) There were disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of dipped man made fabrics falling under Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Ta...
J. Kanniyammal and anr.. Vs. the Additional Chief Secretary and Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order in R.P.No.12 of 2008 dated 24.2.2009 confirming the order of the second respondent in R.P.No.1 of 2008 (E1) dated 6.10.2008 and quash the same as illegal.K.CHANDRU, J.ORDER1. The two petitioners in this writ petition have challenged an order of the first respondent, dated 24.02.2009 made in R.P.No.12 of 2008, in confirming the order of the second respondent viz., the Settlement Officer, Chennai made in R.P.No.1 of 2008 dated 06.10.2008 and seeks to set aside the same.2. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 02.04.2009 and an interim stay was granted for a limited period. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 09.03.2010 and the interim stay granted was extended until further orders.3. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, respondents 5 to 9 got themselves impleaded vide or...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »