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.Annasamy Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the charge Memo No.44300/Aa1/2004 dated 10.04.2008 issued by the first respondent and consequential proceedings No.1658/A1/2009 dated 23.01.2012 issued by the second respondent and quash the same.N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the charge memo dated 10.04.2008 and the consequential proceedings issued by the second respondent dated 23.01.2012.2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on the allegation that the petitioner has demanded a sum of Rs.3,200/- while functioning as Sub-Registrar at Anaimalai, Tiruppur, on 13.08.2004 from one C.Sukumar, S/o Chinnu, Coimbatore for field inspection on 23.08.2004 and he received a sum of Rs.1000/- as a first instalment and thereby violated Rule 20(1)...
Alamelu, and ors. Vs. Minor Janani, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2006 made in MACTOP.No.885 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai (District Court, Tiruvannamalai).R. KARUPPIAH, J.JUDGMENT1. The appellants/claimants have filed this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for an enhanced compensation as against the award dated 25.9.2006 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai (learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai) in MACTOP.No.885 of 2005 for the death of Ramesh in the road traffic accident on 25.10.2005.2. The claimants/appellants have claimed compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for the loss of the life of one Ramesh, who is the husband of the first appellant, son of appellants 2 and 3 and father of appellants 4 to 6 by contending that on 25.10.2005 at about 3.50 pm the deceased was proceeding in his own TVS moped be...
M.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian. Vs. the District Collector Kancheepurm Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent not to put up any bore well and water tank in the petitioner’s patta land situate at Kulandaivelu Nagar layout bearing Plots Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 including shopping plot to an extent of 15771 sq.ft comprised in OS.R.No.88/2 and sub divided S.R.No. 88/2A2 at Mevalurkuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk.N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent not to put up any bore well and water tank in the petitioner's patta land situate at Kulandaivelu Nagar layout bearing Plots Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 including shopping plot to an extent of 15771 sq.ft comprised in OS.R.No.88/2 and sub divided S.R.No. 88/2A2 at Mevalurkuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petit...
The Branch Manager Vs. K.R.Ramesh Alias Kulanthai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
PRAYERAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 24.07.2006 in M.C.O.P.No.644 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC-I), Trichirappalli.B.RAJENDRAN, J.1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal challenging the award of Rs.23,20,000/- in respect of the injury caused to the petitioner.2.The facts and circumstances which led the petitioner to bring this memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal may be summarised briefly as follows:- 2.1. On 17.9.1999, the claimant along with one Sampath @ Rangabash was travelling in a hired car bearing Registration No.TN-49-C-5556 owned by the second respondent insured with the appellant insurance company, from Chennai to Pondicherry. The driver of the car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car against a tree near Kunnathur bus stand @ 7.15 a.m., and in the accident, the claimant sustained fracture injuries all ...
Veerakumar Vs. Manohar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
PRAYERCivil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and decreetal order made in MCOP No.273 of 2005 , dated 21.02.2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub-Court), Pattukkottai.JUDGMENT1. Even in respect of comprehensive insurance policy, whether the insurance company can dispute its liability to pay compensation to a pillion rider on the ground that no additional premium has been paid covering his risk, is the issue to be decided in this appeal.2. The appeal has been filed by the pillion rider/claimant challenging the finding of the Tribunal on liability and compensation.3. The appellant had been riding as a pillion rider in the vehicle belonging to the first respondent who was the owner cum driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN49-M 0277. The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against one Jayakumar, who was a pedestrian. In the same accident the appellant also sustained injuries. He took treatment at Pattukottai Private Hospital. All...
Karana Maravar Service Society Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
PrayerSecond Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, dated 26.04.2005 made in A.S.No.110 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 20.02.2003 made in O.S.No.415 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam.JUDGMENT1. The above second appeal arises against the judgment and decree, dated 26.04.2005 made in A.S.No.110 of 2003, on the file of the II Additional Sub- Court, Madurai reversing the judgment and decree, dated 20.02.2003 made in O.S.No.415 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam.2. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaintiff's society filed the suit arising out of which is the present second appeal thereby questioning the validity and enforceability of the notice issued by the second defendant/Tahsildar in his R.O.C.No.11011/99-A-2, dated 20.12.1999 in and under whic...
S.Subbiah, Vs. the Licensing Authority and District Collecotr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to implement the suspension of "C" Form license against the petitioner theatre on some other 3 days instead of 06.04.2012, 07.04.2012 and 08.04.2012.R.SUDHAKAR, J.ORDER1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to implement the suspension of "C" Form license against the petitioner theatre on some other 3 days instead of 06.04.2012, 07.04.2012 and 08.04.2012.2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has given a representation dated 3.4.2012. He requests this court to direct the respondent to consider the said representation expeditiously. 4. Considering the relief now sought for, without go...
The Indian National Trust for Architectural and Cultural Heritage (int ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a Public Interest Litigation, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forbear from permitting, authorising or allowing demolition, modification or alteration of the Heritage Structure of the fifth and sixth respondents i.e. P.ORR & Sons Heritage Building situate at New No.22 (Old No.855) Mount Road,Chennai-600002, in a manner violative of Annexure XXV of the Development Control Rules as also the orders of this Court in W.P.No.25306 of 2006, dated 29.4.2010.ORDERELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.1. The decision of the official respondents to pull down the rear portion of one of the most important happening places in the city 'P.ORR and sons', to pave way for Chennai Metro Rail, is under challenge in this writ petition.2. According to the petitioner, they are the organisation set up in the year 1984 to protect and conserve India's vast natural and cultural heritage and they are pioneer in the field of ...
R.VijayA. Vs. the Inspector General of Registration, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to call for the partition deed vide Document No.13/2009 under receipt No.200900013 submitted on 07.09.2009 before the respondent No.4 by the petitioner and subsequently direct the respondent No.4 to receive the pending payment due by the petitioner and to register the same.VINOD K.SHARMA, J.ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.4 to receive the pending payment, and register the documents presented for registration.2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though it was the duty of the respondent No.4 to keep the documents presented for registration in safe custody, but without the knowledge of the petitioner, the document was released to the respondent No.5 on her forged signature.3. It is the contention of the lear...
J.Krishnabai. Vs. the Branch Manager, State Bank of IndiA. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to return the original document namely original sale deed bearing Document No.2526/1983 registered at the office of Sub-Registrar Office Chengam, pertaining to the property in the Survey No.42/3 Melravandhavadi Village, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District and the relevant documents such as patta, chitta, adangal given as collateral security to the 1st respondent Bank in respect of agricultural tractor Loan No.ATL 11287176191 immediately.VINOD K.SHARMA, J.ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent Bank to release title deeds of immovable property deposited with the respondent, as security for the Tractor Loan.2. The petitioner applied for a Tractor Loan in the year 2007 under the Agriculture Tractor Loan Scheme. The petitioner submitted necessary pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- Next ›
- Last »