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.
G.Palanisamy Vs. the Branch Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
PRAYER:The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent, to hand over possession of the seized tractor in favour of the petitioner forthwith.O R D E R1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to hand over the possession of the seized tractor to the petitioner.2. The petitioner is an agriculturist who availed agricultural loan of Rs.7,74,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs seventy four thousand only) for purchase of Tractor in November 2005. The loan was to carry interest @ 9% per annum and was to be repaid in 9 years. The petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) quarterly. To secure the loan, the petitioner mortgaged land measuring 7 acres and 15 cents valued at Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only). T...
P.indirajith Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2011.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2011.2. 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. The land acquisition G.O., has been set aside and the petitioner prays no objection certificate to put up construction. In this regard petitioner has made representation dated 14.12.2011 to the third respondent. The writ petition is filed to dispose of the said representation.4. Learned Additional Government Pleader states that the authority will consider the representation of the petitioner on its own merits.5. In view of the limited prayer sought for and the submission made by ...
Karuppasamy at Ramalingam Vs. the State Rep. by the Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and conviction dated 06.11.2009 made in S.C.No.5 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.P.DEVADASS,J,.1. The appellant is accused in S.C.No.5 of 2009 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. For convenience sake, in this judgment, he shall be called as accused.2. He stood charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC. On 06.11.2009, the learned Sessions Judge found him guilty under Section 302 IPC. and sentenced him to life. However, no fine was imposed on him.3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-(i) The accused belongs to Kovanur village in Villupuram District. Deceased Valar @ Valarmathi belongs to Kothamangalam village in the same District. In 2002, the accused married her. Out of their wedlock, two sons were born to them.(ii) Accused did not go for any job. He had always suspected his wife and quarreled with her. A panchayat was held. P...
G.Karthik Vs. the Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Civil revision petition filed against the judgment dated 02.02.2012 passed in O.S.No.37 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal District.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Court, Namakkal District in O.S.No.37 of 2011, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who would detail and delineate, express and expatiate the facts to the effect that the revision petitioner filed the suit as informa pauperis for the following reliefs:"(a)(i) To adjudge two sale deeds dated 22.01.2007 (Document No.1175/2007, 1176/2007) and two sale deeds dated 29.01.2007 (bearing document numbers 1177/2007, 1178/2007, SRO, Komarapalayam) are void and order the same to be delivered up before this Honourable Court and cancelled.(ii) To direct to send the copy of the Decree to ...
B.Jayapradha Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
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 records relating to the G.O.No.110, Transport Department, dated 06.06.2002 and to quash the condition in para 7(a) in the said G.O as illegal and to direct the first respondent to pay family pension to the petitioner from 12.8.1991 without prejudice to the right of getting the family pension under EPF Pension Scheme, 1995.ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.110, Transport Department, dated 6.6.2002 and to set aside the condition found in paragraph 7(a) as illegal and for a consequential direction to the State Government to pay family pension to the petitioner from 12.8.1991 without prejudice to the right of getting family pension under the EPF Pension Scheme 1995.2. The writ petition was admitted on 19.02.2007. Pending the writ petition, i...
K. Nagappan and Another Vs. the Manager (Sales and Allotment) Tamil Na ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.11.2011 in CC. No.316/2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The petitioners have filed this petition to consider the appeal, against the order passed by the District Forum in CC.316/2010, which was dismissed by the District Forum on 21.11.2011, by giving finding that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party, and thereby the complainants are not entitled for any relief. Against these orders, petitioners have come forwar...
The Secretary Vs. R.Girija and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
R.BANUMATHI,J1. Challenging the order in W.P.(MD) No.13227 of 2011 dated 30.11.2011 directing the authorities to permit the 1st respondent-R.Girija to continue in service till the end of academic year viz., 31.05.2012, the School Management has preferred this appeal.2. 1st Respondent-R.Girija was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Appellant's school in 1997 and she was promoted as Headmistress from 01.6.2009. 1st Respondent has attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2011. Anticipating her superannuation falling during the middle of the academic year, 1st Respondent submitted her application on 01.11.2011 seeking benefit of re- employment till the end of academic year viz., 31.5.2012. According to 1st Respondent, she had no adverse remarks against her. While so, instead of considering the limited request of 1st Respondent to continue her in service till the end of the academic year, Appellant and the 2nd Respondent failed to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, 1st Responde...
R.Kalimuthu Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
ORDER1. (Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI,J) In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to disburse the sanctioned amount under Payir Kaappeettu Thittam to the real eligible persons and also to recover the amount paid to fictitious persons by Respondents 5 to 7 and to take action for the alleged misappropriation of funds allotted to the beneficiaries under the Scheme of Payir Kaappeettu Thittam, granted by the Government of Tamil Nadu in A.Punavasal Village, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, by considering the Petitioner's representation, dated 06.06.2011.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has alleged that in disbursement of Insurance Amount granted by the Government as compensation under Payir Kaappeettu Thittam in A.Punavasal Village, there had been several irregularities and illegalities committed by Respondents 5 to 7. In this regard, the Petitioner is said to have sent a represen...
K.Sundara Mahalingam Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J1. The petitioner claiming to be a resident of Laser Nagar, Pattiveeran Patti, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District, filed the present writ petition in public interest, praying for an issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any way establishing or locating a TASMAC liquor shop cum bar opposite to Children's Park, Batlagundu Main Road, Pattiveeran Patti, Nilakkottai Taluk.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner averred that he is a resident of Laser Nagar and he is engaged in the cultivation of coffee and there are temples by name Sri Vinayagar Temple and Pandi Kovil situated in the said place and the people are leading their life peacefully. The petitioner would further aver that the total population of Pattiveeran Patti is about 5,600 and a Children's Park is located and it is used to be open for the general public daily and since it is the only park, the people from all age including the children used to ...
R.Mohan Bhaiya Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records related to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.T1/70614/2011 dated 30.1.2012 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to renew the licence for the petitioner's billiards club known as Club-9 situated at No.58, Azad Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-2, for the year 2011-2012.M.JAICHANDREN, J.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered into a lease agreement with the second respondent, in respect of Shop No.58, Azad Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. He had applied for a licence for running a billiards club in the said premises. The first respondent had issued a licence, dated 13.9.2001, bearing licence No.T1/165/B-2/2001-2002. The said licence had...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »