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.
V. Veeramani Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order of punishment issued by the second respondent in proceedings Rc.No.12/2005/P.A.1 dated 13.3.06 and the Appellate Order issued by the first respondent in G.O(D).NO.405 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 04.12.2008 and quash these orders and consequently direct the Respondents to grant all the increments and other consequential monetary benefits.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. It has been stated that the petitioner was working as the Co-operative Sub-Registrar/Field Officer, in Tirunelveli District, at the time of the filing of the writ petition. While he was working as the Co-operative Sub Registrar/Supervisor, in Palayamkottai Taluk Co-operative Housing Society, from 30.9.1996 to 30.9.1999, certain false allegations had been made again...
Chakravarthy Vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records made in S.C.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, order dated 18.05.2005 as confirmed by judgment made in C.A.No.46 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District cum Sessions Court, Namakkal, order dated 28.08.2006.ORDER1. The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-The first accused's daughter viz., Mayil @ Bhuvaneswari, who hails from Udayyar Community and the deceased namely, Chinnakannu @ Sekar, who hails from Vanniyar Community, developed a love affair towards one another. Under the circumstances, the first accused had arranged a prospective bridegroom for his daughter. But she was not willing to marry the proposed bridegroom. Thereafter, the lovers had decided to move out of their native place and decided to marry each other in a secret place. Accordingly, the deceased had arranged a car bearing Registration No.TSP 2235 for transporting the...
K.R.Premkumar Vs. K.V.Kanakammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Civil revision petition filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 25.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.12374 of 2011 in O.S.No.13709 of 2010 on the file of the III Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 25.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.12374 of 2011 in O.S.No.13709 of 2010 by the III Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, 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. A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:"(a) To declare the Sale Deed dated 07.05.2008 registered as Document NO.1629 of 2008 at Sub Registrar Office, Kodambakkam, as sham, null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff;(b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants, assigns, legal heirs, etc or anyone claiming under the defendant f...
Sundaramurthy Vs. the State Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Appeal filed under Sec.34 of POTA Act against the Order in Cr.M.P.No.156 of 2011 in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2003 dated 12.7.2011 on the file of Sessions Court of Trial of Bomb Blast and POTA Cases, Chennai at Poonnamallee.JUDGMENTG.M. AKBAR ALI,J.1. The petitioner stands charge sheeted for the offence under Sec.3(5) of POTA, 120B IPC r/w 3(2)(b) of POTA and Sec.207, 149, 148, 333, 353 and 387 IPC.2. According to the respondent, the petitioner is an active member of the Radical Student Union, one of the front organisations of Maoist. All these radical groups had decided to organise an Arms Training Programme in a village near Dharmapuri on 23.11.2002. On receiving such information, the Inspector of Police, NSD Wing, Dharmapuri interrogated one Murugesan and arrested the said Murugesan and another by name Morten and a case has been registered by Uthangarai Police Station in Cr.No.1004 of 2002.3. Various persons were arrested and cases were also registered in Cr.No.1005 of 2002 and 1006 of 2002. ...
Stanley Paul Vs. the Secretary to the Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 5.3.2012 to reconvey the land situated in (i) Survey No.80/3 to the extent of 2.06 Acres and Survey No.65/2 to the extent of 1.02 Acres and Survey No.64/2 to the extent of 01.8 cents (ii) Survey No.80/5 to the extent of 0.47 cents and Survey No.90/3 to the extent of 0.10cents (iii) No.93/2 to the extent of 0.54 acres and survey No. 93/1 to the extent of 2/12 cents; (iv) 93/2 to the extent of 1.90 cents and survey No.90/4B to the extent of 2.05 acres and Survey No.93/1 to the extent of 1.17 cents and (v) No.93/1 to the extent of 0.92 cents of Naerasingapuram Village, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District respectively.COMMON ORDER1. These writ petitions are filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 5.3.2012 to reconvey the land situated in (i) Survey No.80/3 to th...
P.Nagaraj. Vs. K.Rajam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in I.A.No.28 of 2011 in A.S.No.89 of 2010.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in I.A.No.28 of 2011 in A.S.No.89 of 2010, this civil revision petition is focused.2. A recapitulation and r'esume of germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 3, in the suit filed by the first respondent herein/plaintiff for getting declared some three sale deeds as void, preferred the appeal A.S.No.89 of 2010. During the pendency of the appeal, I.A.No.28 of 2011 was filed for the purpose of getting the purported signature of D1, who is the revision petitioner No.1 herein, examined by an handwriting expert as to its genuineness. Whereupon, it was contested and ultimately, the appellate Court dismissed the said application, as against w...
Vrinda Vs. Hari Shankar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the III Additional Family Court at Chennai to dispose of the Original Petitions bearing O.P.Nos.3574, 4041 and 2969 of 2009 pending on its file within a time frame.ORDER1. Seeking direction to dispose of the Original Petitions bearing O.P.Nos.3574, 4041 and 2969 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Family Court, Chennai, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in all the three petitions, namely Vrinda, would submit that the said Vrinda filed two O.Ps., namely O.P.No.3574 of 2009 seeking divorce and O.P.No.4041 of 2009 seeking custody of her child. The third O.P., so to say, O.P.No.2969 of 2009 was filed by the respondent/Hari Sankar, for restitution of conjugal rights. In the O.Ps. filed by Vrinda, Hari Sankar - the respondent did not file any counter, even though law contemplates that the entire proc...
T.P.N.G.Dhandapaani. Vs. D.Amirtha Gouri.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Writ Petition No.9657 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from acquiring the petitioner's land in Plot No.271 situated in Survey No.75/5 in No.180, Mathur Village measuring to an extent of 2400 square feet, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District without following due process of law.Writ Petition No.9658 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from acquiring the petitioner's land in Plot No.270 situated in Survey No.75/5 in No.180, Mathur Village measuring to an extent of 2400 square feet, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District without following due process of law.COMMON ORDER1. Writ Petition No.9657 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from acquiring the petitioner's land in Plot No.271 situated in Survey No.75/5 in No.180, Mathur Village measuring to an ext...
Rajendran. Vs. Nallammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Civil revision petition preferred seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit O.S.No.50 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District, Namakkal.ORDER1. The above civil revision petition is filed seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit O.S.No.50 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District, Namakkal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.3. The whole kit and caboodle of the facts and figures that could be inferred and understood from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the records would be to the effect that there are three suits,namely, O.S.Nos.50, 54 and 74 of 2011, in which the revision petitioner herein happened to be the plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2011, which is a suit for specific performance. Whereas, O.S.No.54 of 2011 is for partition and separate possession and O.S.No.74 of 2011 is for declaration and for obtaining injunction. 4. The contention of the revision pet...
S. Balasubramaninan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Revisions filed under Sec.397 r/w Sec.401 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 6.2.2008 in R.C.No.34 of 2005 and Appeal No.289 of 2003 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Chennai confirming the order passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in C.C.No. 10403 of 1995.Petition filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Chennai in R.C.No.34 of 2005 confirming the order passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in C.C.No.10403 of 1995.COMMON ORDERG.M. AKBAR ALI, J.1. Criminal Original Petition No.8025 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.Nos.8 and 9 of 2009 came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. Criminal Revisions were filed at the instance of the accused in CC No.10403 of 1995 and Crl.O.P. was filed at the instance of the private parties.2. During the course of hearing, a question arose before the learned Single Judge as to w...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »