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. Rajan Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to I.D. No. 1 of 2003 and quash the award dated 12.04.2011 passed therein by the first respondent dismissing the same and further direct the second respondent herein to reinstate the petitoiner in service with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.ORDER1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the award dated 12.04.2011 passed by the first respondent/labour Court in I.D. No. 1 of 2003.2. The petitioner joined as Driver in the second respondent/transport corporation on 04.05.1993. According to the petitioner, on 28.06.2002, while he was driving the transport corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN 27 N 1060 from Rasipuram to Salem at 10.15 am, when the bus was nearing Poimaankaradu, in order to give way to the oncoming lorry, the petitioner turned the bus towards the left side and at th...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vs. K.Rathidevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.2394 of 1999, dated 06.09.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Fast Track Court, Chennai.K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU, J.1. The Insurance Company is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2394 of 1999, dated 06.09.2002. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal disputing the quantum alone and not the liability. The respondents are the father and mother of the deceased namely M.Hemanth Babu, a four year old boy. The case of respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal is that the said M.Hemanth Babu was only son and a student of L.K.G., at DAV Boys Higher Secondary School, Mogappair. On 13.09.1998, at about 20.00 hours, while the deceased boy was proceeding in an Autorickshaw, bearing Reg.No.TN 01 J 8647, in 100 Feet Road, from South to North, near Koyambedu Rountana, a Maruthi Van bearing Reg.No.TN 45 E ...
P.V. Santhosh Kumar Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's possession in respect of Sy.No.729/2 measuring abut 425 cents at Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.O R D E R1. Petitioner, who allegedly purchased the property measuring an extent of 425 cents in Survey No.729/2 at Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent from interfering with his possession.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said property was purchased by him from his vendors by Document No.4085/2005 dated 28.11.2005 and his vendors purchased the said property on 11.11.1981. It is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner's vendors secured permission from the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning for forming a layout in the year 1983. At the time o...
Antony Vs. Vaithyalinga Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 27.11.2006, passed by the Sub-Court, Gingee, in A.S. No.21 of 2005, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.01.2003, passed in O.S.No.351 of 1996, by the Additional District Munsif's Court, Gingee.T.RAJA, J.1. The present second appeal has been brought by the plaintiff, who filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee, in O.S.No.351 of 1996, on the ground that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property by a sale deed, dated 25.10.1985, Ex.A2, from one Amalorpavameri, who had purchased from one Periyanayagam, under sale deed, dated 09.04.1972, Ex.A1.2. A detailed written statement was filed by the defendant/respondent herein, taking a stand that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the entire suit property, since she had purchased under sale deed, dated 25.10.1985, from one Amalorpa...
Union of India and ors. Vs. R. Ramesh and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent herein culminating with its order dated 26.4.2011 passed in O.A. No. 1109 of 2010 and quash the same.ORDER(Made by M. VENUGOPAL, J.)1. The Third Respondent / Applicant belongs to Kattunaicken community. He has obtained a Community Certificate dated 21.9.1997 from the Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector of Chennai to support his claim of Kattunaicken communtiy (ST community). According to the First Respondent / Applicant, the said certificate has been issued only after verification of the concerned records including the school records which point out that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community.2. According to the First Respondent / Applicant, he has been selected and appointed as Technical Operator (Drilling) in the office of the Third Respondent on 01.5.1998 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe. At the time of his a...
A.Valluvan. Vs. the State Rep.by Assistant Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
COMMON ORDER1. Since the petitioners in both these applications have been arrayed as accused in the very same crime number, a common order is passed.2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.604 of 2012 is A-2 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.587 of 2012 is arrayed as A-3 for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 474 r/w 120(B) IPC in Crime No.591 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.3. In order to decide these applications, the factual background surrounding the case requires a proper narration.4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Intervener as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the records produced. This Court infact heard the arguments of Shri.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.604 of 2012 and the learned counsels appearing for the other parties including the intervening petitioner. Thereafter once ag...
S.Periyasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order dated 20.04.2010 made in C.M.P.No.1024 of 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode and allow the revision petition.ORDER1. The second respondent herein / defacto complainant had levelled a case against the revision petitioner herein / accused and three others before the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai. The said case was forwarded to the C.B.C.I.D. for enquiry. The C.B.C.I.D. Wing had registered a Criminal Case in Crime No.1 of 2008 for the offence alleged under Section 120(B), 420, 406, 409, 468, 471 and 506(1) IPC. On the basis of the F.I.R., investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police and he had come to the conclusion that the case was unproven, therefore, the complaint was closed as "MISTAKE OF FACT". The said report was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, wherein the defacto complainant, viz., T.T.Paranthaman had filed a Cr...
Mrs.Balkish Ariba Beevi. Vs. State Represented By, the Inspector of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to permit the petitioner to implead Doctor Pugalendi as the second respondent in the present revision and to accept the cause title of the main revision and to condone the delay of 558 days in preferring the above Criminal Revision.ORDER1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-The revision petitioner / third party viz., Mrs.Balkish Ariba Beevi, had stated in her affidavit that her daughter Mrs.Bathuriya Begum got married to one Y.Eshak on 03.03.1996 at Chennai. Out of wedlock, two sons were born on 11.02.1999 and 24.06.2002 respectively. On 14.11.2005, her son-in-law had developed digestion problem and he had been taken to the lab, Tondiarpet, where he was wrongly administered 56 injections within a short span of 20 minutes, as a result of which he had expired due to overdose on the very same day. Because of the unnatural death, her daughter, i.e., wife of the deceased due to vexation had expired. Thereafte...
Dr.Kr.Davies. Vs. the Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2011 and also directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give police protection to the petitioner.ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to dispose of the representation, dated 11.08.2011 and also to give police protection.2. In the representation, dated 11.08.2011 which was addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner complained about the action of the Federal Bank, Vatanapally Branch.3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has been filing case after case before various forums without there being legal right on his part. The complaint made by the petitioner against the bank which is a private bank is not clearly maintainable.4. T...
V.Vanaja Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
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 impugned order dated /03/2012 passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.C.Pa.No.A3/79/11 and quash the same.ORDER1. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent, i.e., District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai-1, dated Nil (March, 2012) in demanding deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,35,360/- in respect of document No.1150/09.2. The contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner was the natural mother of one Rajesh. Out of love and affection, her son Rajesh had wanted to settle his property in her favour. Pursuant to the same, he had settled the property through his power agent D.Venugopal in her favour vide settlement deed, dated 13.04.2009. It was registered as Document No.1156/2009 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar. The do...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »