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.
M.Selvakumarasamy and anr. Vs. P.Rathinasamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Civil revision petition filed against the petition and order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore in I.A.No.526 of 2011 in O.S.No.433 of 2011 dated 16.12.2011.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDER1. This revision is focussed as against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed in I.A.No.526 of 2011 in O.S.No.433 of 2011 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore. 2. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, at the time of hearing, would implore and entreat that he would be satisfied if suitable direction is given by this Court to the lower Court for early disposal of the matter, as the suit itself is one for recovery of money.3. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.4. Accordingly, the following direction is passed:5. The lower Court shall do well to see that the suit is disposed of within a period of three months from the date o...
R.Suganya Vs. the Director of Government Examinations
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondent herein to re-value the theory answer paper of the petitioner in Subject Code No.110 for the first year in the two year Diploma in Teacher Training Course for the exams held in June 2011 for the Roll No.1122559.K.CHANDRU, J.COMMON ORDER1. The petitioners have filed the writ petitions, seeking for a direction to the respondent to re-value the theory answer paper of the Subject Code No.110 for the first year in the two year Diploma in Teacher Training Course for the examinations held during June 2011.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have made an application for issue of the photocopy of the answer sheets. It was stated by the petitioners that their answer sheets have not been valued properly and there is every possibility that the answer sheets not being valued properly since the petitioners have acquired high marks in mathematics in their +2 exam...
Hanjari Mal S.Doshi Vs. the District Collector of Kancheepuram, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the record on the file of the 3rd respondent pertaining to the letter bearing No.Na.Ka.1/2010 dated 22.12.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per square feet in respect of the petitioner's property admeasuring 4 acres 59 cents (sq.ft.200124) comprised in S.Nos.1/1, 2/13, 2/11B, 2/11C, 2/15, 3/15, 3/4, 3/6B, 3/9A, 3/1, 3/2 at Pillaipakkam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram on par with other owners of the adjacent lands.VINOD K.SHARMA, J.ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of land measuring 4.59 acres at No.103, Pillaipakkam village. The land of the petitioner along with adjacent lands at Pillaipakkam was acquired under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act, 1999 for the purpose of Industrial Development.2.T...
T.Tamilarasi Vs. the Director, Directorate of Teacher Education Resear ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for revaluation of her answer papers for D.T.Ed., course for the academic year 2010-11.K.CHANDRU, J.ORDER1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to consider her representation for revaluation of her answer papers for the Diploma Course in Teacher Education for the academic year 2010-11.2. In the said representation, the copy of which found at page 6 of the typed set, the petitioner has stated that in the 2nd year D.T.Ed examination held during June 2011, she got 38 marks in English and 43 marks in Tamil, but she has written very well in the examination. When she asked for re-valuation of marks, the college Principal informed her that there is no provision for re-valuation. The petitioner has also attached the mark sheet to show that except in English and Tamil, she has secured very good marks and therefore, s...
Ramachandran Vs. Valliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 20 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Court/Fast Track Court NO.2, Tuticorin, dated 18.6.2010.2. The respondents, as plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S. No. 20 of 2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the petitioner/defendant. The suit was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Tuticorin by judgment and decree dated 18.06.2010.3. After evidence adduced in the suit, arguments were heard on 10.06.2010 and the suit was reserved for judgment. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and the Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2010 came into force whereby and where under the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court was enhanced and suits more than ten lakhs are to be tried by District Courts and that of subordinate court was more than five lakhs. Acc...
C.Jaishankar Vs. the Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
JUDGMENT1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition (Order dated 21.6.2007) declining to issue a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to reinstate the appellant, the appellant has preferred this Appeal.2. The first respondent called for interview through Employment Exchange for appointment of a watchman. The appellant attended the interview. The appellant was selected for the post of watchman and on 8.4.2002, he was appointed as watchman in first respondent college. In the appointment order, it was clearly stated that his appointment is subject to the approval of Director of Collegiate Education. The appellant worked upto October, 2002 and he was paid consolidated pay of Rs.900/- and assured of paying the Government pay scale as early as possible.3. The case of the appellant is that he had to appear for Secondary School Examination and with the permission of the second respondent,he took leave from 22.9.2004 to 1.10.2004 to appear for Secondary School Examination. Further case ...
A.Kasinathan Vs. the Branch Manager.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
R.BANUMATHI,J.1. Revised guidelines of Educational Loan Scheme - 2011 of Indian Banks Association (IBA) imposing restriction of 60% marks for considering educational loan in case of students who secured admission under Management Quota is under challenge.2. The appellant and other writ petitioners are the students, who secured admission in Management Quota and secured less than 60% marks as stipulated by the Banks as per the revised guidelines in Circular No.83/2011 dated 17.03.2011 of Canara Bank and revised guidelines of other banks. . On the ground that issues involved in the writ petitions are similar to the issues arising in the Writ Appeal, on reference by the learned single judge, all the writ petitions were posted along with Writ Appeal. With the consent of all thecounsel appearing for writ petitioners and also the Banks, arguments in the writ petitions were heard along with the Writ Appeal.3. Educational Loan Scheme - Background facts:- Education is central to the Human Resour...
Daniel (Died) Vs. the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J1. The appellant is the writ petitioner and he filed W.P.(MD)No.9183 of 2007 is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to sanction the Family Benefit Fund to the petitioner's family which is due and payable on account of demise of his wife namely Chinnammal. The said writ petition was dismissed on 07.01.2008 for the reason that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under the Family Security Fund Scheme since his wife died beyond the age of 60 years. The writ petitioner challenging the vires of the same, preferred this writ appeal. Pendency of this writ appeal, the appellant died and the present appellant is substituted as per the order dated 02.09.2010 made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner averred that his wife namely Chinnammal was working in the Government Primary School at Pallikulathu Villai as a Part Time Sweeper and she died at the age of 59 years on 13...
The Manager Vs. S.Ummal Marjunabeevi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
R.BANUMATHI,J1. Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- awarded for the death of the deceased Shajahan and Rs.1,64,500/- for the death of the deceased Asif Ahamed, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.Nos.461 and 462 of 2008.2. Being aggrieved with the finding that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, insured with the Appellant- Insurance Company and that the accident was due to the negligent riding of the two wheeler by the deceased Shajahan (M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2006), Claimants have preferred Cross Objection No.34 of 2008 in C.M.A.No.461 of 2008.3. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded for the death of Minor Asif Ahamed (M.C.O.P. No.92 of 2006), Claimants have preferred Cross Objection No.35 of 2008 in C.M.A.No.462 of 2008. Since same issues are involved both in the appeals as well as in the Cross Objections, all of them were heard together and stand disposed of by this common judgmen...
R.M.Reymond Raj Vs. the Head.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
B. Rajendran, J1. The appellant aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition seeking for a certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 03.03.2005, has come forward with this Writ Appeal.2. According to the appellant, while he was working as a Security Guard in the respondent company which is owned by the Central Government, he had given a complaint against the Senior Security Officer alleging that the said Officer has taken a jewel weighing 20 grams kept in his bag while on duty. But, later on, even though he made a complaint before the higher officials, it was not taken up and as he was advised to give a police complaint, he gave a police complaint. But the Investigation Officer found that the complaint itself was a bogus one. The authorities, only on the basis of the report of the Investigation Officer, has initiated action against him departmentally as he has given a false complaint against the Superior Officer and after due enquiry, he was given a punishment of withholding of...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »