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.
Valliammal. Vs. Sathyapriya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore & District, in E.A.No.108 of 2007 in E.P.No.211 of 2006 in O.S.No.703 of 2001.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore & District, in E.A.No.108 of 2007 in E.P.No.211 of 2006 in O.S.No.703 of 2001, this civil revision petition is focused.2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.3. A recapitulation and recounting of the germane facts would run thus:E.P.No.211 of 2006 was filed by the decree holder for enforcing the final decree. At that time, E.A.No.108 of 2007 was filed by the revision petitioner-Valliammal/3rd party claiming to be the purchaser of the entire suit property from Marammal-R2 herein, who happened to be one of the defendants in the suit.4. The indubitable and indisputable, unarguable and unassailable fact is that pendente lite, so to say, pending O.S.No.703 of 2001, the revision pet...
Ms.S.B.Suji Chits (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. R.Rajalakshmi
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 judgment passed in S.T.C.No.1761 of 1996 by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore dated 11.02.2003 and impose a severe punishment, order compensation to the petitioner.ORDER1. The revision petitioner / complainant has preferred this Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.998 of 2003 against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.1761 of 1996, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore.2. The complainant's case is as follows:-The complainant is carrying on business in the field of chit and finance, in Coimbatore District. The accused became a subscriber in the complainant's company in the group number 'S'/949/93. The above said group is for the value of Rs.50,000/- and the duration of the said group is 25 months and the amount payable by the accused is Rs.2,000/- per month. The accused had issued a cheque, dated 24.02.1996, drawn on M/s. Indian Bank, ADUC Branch, Coimbatore (Cheque No.810874), in fa...
A.Elizabeth Vs. the Treasury Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.12714/2001/G4 dated 04.06.2001 and quash the same and direct respondents 1 and 2 to issue duplicate pension payment order to the petitioner and pay life time arrears, family pension to the petitioner.O R D E R1. The husband of petitioner Mr.C.Kannian, who was working as Secondary Grade Teacher at the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Chinnamandari, Tiruvallur District, retired from service on 30.09.1996.2. The Pension Payment Order (PPO) No.A903489, Education, was issued, in which petitioner was recorded as wife of the pensioner. The husband of petitioner had also nominated the petitioner as his wife in the Government record, as she had married Mr.C.Kannian, after the death of his first wife.3. In the legal heir certificate, issued by the Tahsildar, in which the petitioner and dau...
R.Kumaravel Gounder Vs. the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrat
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 certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent dated 26.02.2012 under Section 138 Cr.P.C. and quash the same by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry the water for residential purpose and for schools.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order passed by the first respondent Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District. The impugned order came to be passed in terms of Section 138 of Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, the petitioner was prohibited from exploiting ground water for commercial use. The Sub Collector, Hosur was informed that high noise pollution was created due to the operation of heavy vehicles in the early hours every day and large quantity of water was removed from the residential area for commercia...
Tamil Nadu Anaithu Kooturavu Niyaaya Vilai Kadai Paniyalargal Sangam V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to impugned circular in E1/33683/2007 dated 19.08.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent and his subordinates to follow the earlier circular in RC 85179/2003/PDSG2 dated 19.02.2004.This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent relating to the impugned G.O.(Standing) No.139 dated 21/07/2008 of the first respondent order bearing Ref:U1/33683/2007 dated 19/08/2008 of the second respondent order bearing Ref.Rc.No.Com3/ 31858/08 dated 01/09/2008 of the third respondent and quash the same.This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent relating t...
Purushothaman. Vs. Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in E.P.No.93 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2006.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in E.P.No.93 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focused.2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.3. A brief recounting of the germane facts would run thus:E.P.No.93 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2006 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder in O.S.No.20 of 2006 for attaching the property of the revision petitioner/judgement debtor herein. However, the revision petitioner/judgement debtor filed counter resisting the E.P.on the main ground that already under the special enactment, namely, Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, attachment was effected and in such a case, the property cannot be attached by the civil Court. However, the Executing Court, after hearing bo...
K. Thanasekaran Vs. Dr. V. Ravindranath, M.Sc., M.N.A.M.S.M.Ch
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
(This petition is preferred by the petitioner, praying to set aside the order of District Forum in MP No.43/2009 in unnumbered complaint dt.08.03.2011. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothsides, this commission made the following order.) JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI J, PRESIDENT. (Open court) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay of 323 days may be condoned, in filing the complaint in view of the reason that the complainant was staying out of the country, and could not pursue the complaint effectively, by praying to set aside the order of District Forum, dismissing the petition for the same in CMP.43/2009. 2. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the delay of 323 days is inordinate, and the reasons assigned to condone the delay is unacceptable, further relied on a judgement by the Honble National Commission reported in IV (2010) CPJ 407 (NC), contended that the case o...
S.Krishnan Vs. the Licensing Authority.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
B.RAJENDRAN, J.1. The writ appeal has been filed as against the order dated 24.10.2008 made in W.P.No.8204 of 2008.2. According to the appellant who is the driver working in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd. He was driving the bus between Anna bus Stand and Palamedu on 12.08.2008 at about 5.45 p.m. when the bus reached a bus stop called Ayyer Bungalow stop the passengers got down from the bus and also boarded the bus. According to the appellant when he was about to start the bus from the above said bus stop the passengers of the bus told him that an aged woman passenger fell down on the road from the front side steps of the bus. Immediately, he stopped the vehicle and the said aged woman passenger was found no serious injury and in conscious stage and took her to the hospital. Later on, after seven days, he was told that she was died. According to him, the accident happened not due to any fault on his part but an F.I.R. was registered against him under Section 3...
S.Rajaram Vs. the Director and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Omu.No. 4952/A2/2011, dated 12.08.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to give two incentive increments as per the order dated 10.08.2009 passed in W.P.No. 6691 of 2009 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.ORDER1. The petitioner, seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 12.08.2011 and further direct the respondents to give two incentive increments as per the order dated 10.08.2009 passed in W.P.No. 6691 of 2009 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.2. Heard both sides.3. The petitioner is working as a Vocational Instructor in the third respondent School from the year 2001 and at the time of joining the School, he was in possession of B.Sc., Agri and thereafter, he obtained M.Sc., in the...
K.R.Balasubramaniam Vs. State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
Prayer :- Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set-aside the order dated 24.04.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2009 in Special C.C.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the learned Special Judge-I / X Additional Judge, Chennai.ORDER1. The nutshell of the case are as follows:-The revision petitioner / accused No.13 had filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the Criminal Proceedings in Crime No.9/AC/96/HQ for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of IPC, on the file of respondent, stating that he is an innocent person, and that without oral or documentary evidence, the said criminal case had been filed. The revision petitioner has further stated that he has not abetted with A1 as stated in the final report. As per final report, there is no prima facie case against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has acquired sufficient income through his agric...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »