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.
R.Kondasamy Naidu Vs. K.Janakaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
These civil revision petitions are preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the common order and decreetal orders dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.Nos.558, 595 and 763 of 2011 respectively in LAOP No.120 of 1999.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the common order and decreetal orders dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.Nos.558, 595 and 763 of 2011 respectively in LAOP No.120 of 1999, these civil revision petitions have been focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these three revision petitions would run thus:(i) The immovable property concerned was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act; whereupon, proceedings were initiated for disbursal of the amount and the revision petitioner, who is one and the same, viz.,R.Konda...
Syed Tajuddeen Madani Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 09.11.2011 made in W.P.(MD)No.12587 of 2010 on the file of this Court. PRAYER IN WP.12587 of 2010:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the fourth respondent herein in AEE/O&M/CONT/TRY/F Theft Energy/10 D.No.196/10 dated.27.09.2010 and quash the same as illegal, ultravires and unconstitutional and consequently direct the fourt respondent to retire the disconnection effected on 25.09.2010 and for other consequential relief.B.RAJENDRAN, J.1. Whether the office of a Lawyer is a commercial establishment and thus liable to be charged for the use of electricity under Tariff-V at the rate applicable to commercial consumption is the point falling for consideration in this appeal. &nbs...
A.Paul Pandi Vs. Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Aut ...
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 respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to allot an alternative shop to the petitioner.R.SUDHAKAR, J.ORDER1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to allot an alternative shop to the petitioner.2. Mr.Raja Srinivas, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner claims to be a flower vendor and has vacated the shop at the instance of the second respondent. Petitioner has now made a request by way of representation dated 28.10.2011 addressed to the second respondent seeking alternative shop.4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the second resp...
Narender Kumar Bisani. Vs. the District Collector Kancheepuram Distric ...
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, to direct the second respondent to dispose of the representation dated 21.12.2010 and reminder dated 29.2.2012.R.SUDHAKAR, J.ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation dated 21.12.2010 and reminder dated 29.2.2012.2. Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner claims that his lands were acquired for SIPCOT, Zone-4 Irungattukottai Extension Scheme and the value fixed to his lands for the purpose of compensation is not commensurate with the value fixed in respect of other adjacent plot owners. Therefore, petitioner has made a representation on 21.12.2010 which is acknowledged on 23.12.2010 and a reminder on 29.2.2012 which has been acknowledged on 8.3.2012.4. Th...
Balaji Builders Private Ltd Vs. the Collector Collectorate Office Pudu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 15.2.2012 in No.6380/Rev/B2G/12 passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the 4th respondent or its men or agents or representatives or assigns or anyone claiming under it from interfering with the peaceful administration of the maintenance works of the common utilities in the Sree Chanakya Apartments situate at Re-Survey No.97/4 in Sithankudisal of Saram Village and within Oulgart Commune of Pondicherry.K.CHANDRU, JORDER 1. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner who is a builder and who was responsible for building one Chanakya Apartment at Sithankudi, Puducherry. The apartment consists of 62 flats in 6 blocks. The petitioner transferred undivided share in the land and also entered into a builder agreement for building the apartments, which have been handed over to the apartment owners. ...
A.Kaspar Vs. Dharmapuri Muncipality.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2011, by removing the garbage & stagnated water in the market place at Mohammad Ali Club Road, Dharmapuri within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and thereby preventing damage to the compound wall of the petitioner's property situate in Door No.9/5, Mohammad Ali Club Road, Dharmapuri.M.JAICHANDREN, J.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 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 respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 26.11.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for...
Rm.M.Ct.M.Thirupani Trust Vs. the Principal Secretary and Commissioner ...
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 of the first respondent herein pertaining to the order dated 17.3.2009 passed in Rc.K1/24723/2008 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 23.7.2008 passed in RP No.1/2003 which confirmed the order of the third respondent in S.R.No.148/88 dated 29.7.1991 and quash the same.K.CHANDRU, J.ORDER1. The writ petition is filed by a Trust known as S.Rm.M.Ct.M.Thirupani Trust represented by its Trustee M.Ct.P.Chidambaram. The writ petition challenges an order passed by the first respondent viz., Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 17.03.2009, confirming the order of the second respondent viz., Settlement Officer, Chennai dated 23.07.2008 made in R.P.No.1 of 2003, which in turn confirmed the order of the third respondent in S.R.No.148 of 1988 dated 29.07.1991.2. In the writ petition, notice of motion w...
K.P.Premkumar. Vs. the Collector and anr.
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 refer the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2011 and 6.2.2012 to a Civil Court for grant of enhanced compensation in respect of the lands acquired from them for the purpose of Chennai Metro Rail Project.R.SUDHAKAR, J.ORDER1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to refer the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2011 and 6.2.2012 to a Civil Court for grant of enhanced compensation in respect of the lands acquired from them for the purpose of Chennai Metro Rail Project.2. Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. Mr.Ramajagadeesan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. In respect of the land acquired by the second respondent, petitioner made a repres...
Gunalan Vs. S.Murugamanickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 11.2.2008 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, (Appellate Authority), Salem, in R.C.A.No.9 of 2007 confirming the order of eviction dated 9.1.2007 passed by the First Additional District Munsif (Rent Controller), Salem, in R.C.O.P.No.65 of 2005.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDERInveighing the order dated 11.2.2008 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, (Appellate Authority), Salem, in R.C.A.No.9 of 2007 confirming the order of eviction dated 9.1.2007 passed by the First Additional District Munsif (Rent Controller), Salem, in R.C.O.P.No.65 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focused.2. A recapitulation and r esume of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:(i) The respondent/landlord filed the R.C.O.P.No.65 of 2005 as against the revision petitioner/tenant for obtaining delivery of possession of the three premises bearing door Nos.77, 78 and 80-A...
Venkatesan and anr. Vs. Sri Arulmigu Karivaradharaj Perumal Koil and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.04.1996 in A.S.No.46 of 1995 on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.1995 in O.S.No.149 of 1988 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam.M.VENUGOPAL, J.JUDGMENT1. The Appellants/Defendants 2 and 3 have preferred the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.04.1996 in A.S.No.46 of 1995 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam.2.The Plaint Facts [projected by the 1st Respondent/ Plaintiff]:(i)The suit landed property described in the Plaint Schedule is the absolute property of the Plaintiff. The cart track mentioned in the description of property is situated in poramboke land belongs to the Tamil Nadu Government. The dispute is in regard to the cart track which is called as suit property. The suit agricultural landed properties belonged to the 1st Respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »