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.
The Manager M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and Another Vs. J. Se ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for certain direction from the opposite party. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.14.2.2011 in CC. No.388/2009. 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:) JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. Both sides arguments heard. Learned counsel for the appellant represented that the award amount of Rs.2150/-, being the excess amount collected was already paid to the complainant/ respondent, which is disputed by the respondent counsel and as far as the compensation and cost awarded by the District Forum are concerned, the appellant counsel contende...
The Manager Ashok Leyland Finance Limited (Now Known as Indusind Bank ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.02.03.2010 in CC. No.109/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on eitherside, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. Bothside counsels heard. Learned counsel for the appellant represented that in view of the documents, filed before this commission, to be considered in this case, in favour of the opposite parties, which is filed in CMP.No.1824/2011. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant contended that those documents are permitted to be filed, only subject to proof a...
Association of Veteran Employees Vs. the Secretary to Government and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
PRAYERWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue an order of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his G.O.No.2080, dated 14.09.1977 and quash the same.ORDERB.RAJENDRAN, J.1. The petitioner association has come forward with this Public Interest Litigation challenging the Government Order in G.O.No.2080, Education (D3) Department, dated 14.09.1977.2. According to the petitioner, as per the Division Bench judgment dated 17.12.1975 in W.P.No.4478 of 1974, Sections 11(1)(b), 14, 22 and 23 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules made thereunder 1974 (Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974) was made inapplicable to the minority schools on the ground that these provisions are violative of Article 30 (i) of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, G.O.No.2080, Education (D3) Department, dated 14.09.1977 was passed and the ad hoc rules under the title of the M...
Akshara Matriculation Hr. Sec. School Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the order passed in Na.Ka.No.65343/2005 Tsunami dated 19.07.2011 by the 3rd respondent and quash the same by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to reimburse a sum of Rs.81,900/- to the petitioner school towards special fee and tuition fee for the students of the TSUNAMI affected family for the year 2007-2008.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order Na.Ka.No.65343/2005 Tsunami dated 19.07.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent (i.e.) Special Deputy Collector, with a consequential relief of direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to reimburse a sum of Rs.81,900/- to the petitioner school, towards special fee and tuition fee for the students of the TSUNAMI affected family, for the year 2007-2008.2. The petitioner is a School run by M/s.Meenakshi Narayanan Me...
True Value Homes India (P) Ltd. Vs. T.Kumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.06.2011, made in I.A.No.200 of 2010 in O.S.No.349 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 08.06.2011 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu in I.A.No.200 of 2010 in O.S.No.349 of 2006, 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 summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition as against seven defendants, so to say, R2 to R7 and the petitioner/D7 herein. It so happened that the revision petitioner/D7 filed Vakalat, but thereafter, written statement was not filed. In the meanwhile it appears, D1 to D6 submitted to decree; whereupon the decree was passed. Subsequently, the rev...
R. Chandrika Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent with regard to the conditions laid down in para 7 (a) in G.O. Ms. No.10, Transport Department dated 06.06.2002 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant family pension and for payment of arrears of Family Pension to the petitioners from 19.10.1989, 05.05.1989, 16.01.1980, 14.06.2009 and 01.01.2000, the date of the death of the petitiones' husband respectively by following the judgments in W.A. No. 1246 of 2009 dated 18.08.2010, W.P. No. 33975 of 2005 dated 20.09.2011 and in W.P. No. 35674 of 2005 dated 20.09.2011.COMMON ORDER1. The petitioners pray for issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the G.O. Ms. No. 10, Transport Department dated 06.06.2002 on the file of the first respondent in so far as it relates to the conditions laid down in para 7 (a) of the said Government Order and consequentl...
Ms.Shri Ganapathi Mills Vs. the Regional Provident Fund and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
PRAYERWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25.11.2008 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2905 of 2007 on the file of this Court.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J1. Being aggrieved by the order dated dated 25.11.2008 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2905 of 2007 regarding statutory liability under the Employees' Provident Fund, the appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal.2. When the matter came up on 10.4.2012, there was no representation for the appellant and therefore, the Writ Appeal was posted today (i.e. 11.4.2012) under the caption "For Dismissal". Even today, there is no representation for the appellant.3. Since there is no representation for the appellant, the Writ Appeal is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....
K.Padmavathy Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned rejection order issued in Na.Ka.No.224/1420 dated 06.08.2011 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary unreasonable, improper, illegal against the rules and regulations of the respondents, violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and there by directing the 1st respondent to recognise the petitioner as a lawful tenant/lessee under the 1st respondent temple on the basis of her continuous possession and enjoyment of the land belonging to 1st respondent situated at door No.40 B/5, Kullunthankulam south bank street, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur situated in survey No.2788/2A1B, No.3, South Sethi Village in an extent of 2457 sq.ft of land in the occupation of the petitioner thereby assess the rent/tax in the name of the petitioner enabling her to pay the same to the 1st r...
T.C.Dharmalingam Vs. S.Chinnasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
PRAYER:Civil Revision Petition filed against the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in I.A.No.846 of 2008 in A.S.No.94 of 2006.O R D E R1. Animadverting upon the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in I.A.No.846 of 2008 in A.S.No.94 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:"(a) grant a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their men, agents etc., from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A,B,C,D suit Channel, and;(b) direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit."(extracted as such)(ii) Written statement was filed by the petitioners herein/defendants resisting the suit.(iii) During the pendency o...
T.Pazhanivel. Vs. the Director of Rural Development
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.2.2012 and to take necessary action against the fifth respondent, who had committed acts of commission and omission, within a time prescribed by this Court.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.2.2012 and to take necessary action against the fifth respondent, who had committed acts of commission and omission, within a time prescribed by this Court.2. Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. In view of the nature of order to be passed, the notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with.3. Petitioner has grievance against the fifth res...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »