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.
T.C.P.Jayalakshmi. Vs. the Executive Engineer and the Administrative O ...
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 Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 24.09.2011 made in letter No.A19/9702/10 passed by the first respondent. VINOD K.SHARMA, J.ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 24.09.2011 issued vide letter No.A19/9702/10 by the first respondent cancelling allotment of flat.2 The translated copy of the impugned order reads as under:"FromToThiru G.Ramamurthy, B.E.Tmt.T.C.P.Jayalakshmi,Executive Engineer &Assistant,Administrative Officer,O/o Joint Commissioner,Kovai Housing Board,Commercial Tax Officer,Tamil Nadu Housing Board,Coimbatore 18.Tatabad, Coimbatore 642012.Registered PostLetter No.A-19/9702/10Dt.24.09.2011Madam,Sub: Tamil Nadu Housing Board CoimbatoreHousing Division Panthayasalai G.O.R.Q.No.2/34 Cancellation of allotment &...
Sakthivel. Vs. MekalA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuram, Erode in I.A.No.1474 of 2009 in O.S.No.506 of 2007 dated 22.07.2010.G.RAJASURIYA, J.ORDER1. Succinctly and precisely, the germane facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:-The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money based on the pro-note executed by the respondent/defendant in favour of the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The suit was decreed ex-parte. However, the respondent/defendant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get condoned the delay of 102 days in filing the application to get set aside the ex-parte order under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code.2. After hearing both sides, the trial Court condoned the delay on cost of Rs.500/- payable by the respondent/defendant to the revision petitioner. Aggriev...
S.Raj Kumar. Vs. the Commissioner, Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Offi ...
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 Certiorari, to call for the relevant records and setting aside order of the 2nd respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.3/8762/2001 dated 06.12.2001 with the consequential directions to the 1st respondent to consider for promotion of the petitioner as Graduate Teacher in the 3rd respondent school.VINOD K.SHARMA, J.ORDER1. The petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Government Adidravidar Welfare Higher Secondary School at Singanoor, Dindivanam Taluk. The petitioner, being qualified to be appointed as B.T. Assistant (History), was promoted as Post Graduate Assistant (History) against available vacancy and transferred to Thanjavur District. It was due to family circumstances, that the petitioner was not able to join duty as B.T.Assistant, and made request to the respondents to appoint him as B.T. Assistant (History) in Adidravidar Welfare Higher Secondary School, where the petiti...
Sambasiva Reddiar (Died), and ors. Vs. Sardarmal Chordia Jain, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram dated 28.04.2009 in E.A.No.28 of 2009 in E.P.No.231 of 2005 in O.S.No.126 of 1981.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 28.04.2009 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in E.A.No.28 of 2009 in E.P.No.231 of 2005 in O.S.No.126 of 1981, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. When the matter has come up for hearing, the learned Advocates on both sides were present with their respective parties, namely, Sarasu and Gouthamchand Jain and they jointly presented the memo of compromise and prayed this Court for recording the compromise.3. On hearing Sarasu/P6 as well as Gouthamchand Jain/R2, I directed the Deputy Registrar concerned to record their statements and get marked the memo of compromise as well as the power of attorney deeds. After the Deputy Registrar recorded the statements of the respective parties and also marking the relevant do...
Haji T.Azeezur Rahman Rowther. Vs. the Additional Secretary Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Writ Petition has been filed under section 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an order of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to pass orders recognising the seven members including myself and Muthawalli of the Adhoc Committee of the Mosque as unanimously resolved by the Jamathars of the Mosque on 22.7.2011 to be incharge of the day to day affairs and administration of the Mosque till holding an election for constituting a regular Managing Committee of the Mosque as per Law pursuant to the Resolution of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board itself passed in Item No.53 of 2009 RCVINOD K. SHARMA, J.ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to pass orders recognising the seven members Adhoc Committee including the petitioner as Muthawalli of the Adhoc Committee of the Mosque, as unanimously resolved by the Jamanthars of the Mosque on 22.7.2011, to look after th...
K.Ganesan. Vs. the District Collector, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/69191/2000 dated 15.05.2002 confirming the order of 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A5/1417/2000 dated 27.03.2001 and quash and set aside the said orders thereby reinstating the petitioner as Village Assistant at Thiruthu or any other Village with all service and monetary benefits.VINOD K.SHARMA, J.ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the District Collector, Tirunelveli in appeal filed by petitioner against the order of removal from service.2. The petitioner was issued charge memo under Rule 17(b) on the following charges:"Charge No.1Ambasamduram Taluk, Pathamadai Village without the Village account for S.No.314/1a has been created imaginary S.No.and without receiving any...
V.Ananda Mudaliar Vs. the Secretary to Government, and ors.
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 Certiorari, call for the records and quash the proceedings of the third respondent in his Villupuram Mandalam Arivippu Enn 85/08/E2/dated 06.01.2010 signed on 1.2.2012.R.SUDHAKAR, J.ORDER1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records and quash the proceedings of the third respondent in his Villupuram Mandalam Arivippu Enn 85/08/E2/dated 06.01.2010 signed on 1.2.2012.2. Heard Mrs.Manjula Baskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.3. The encroachment notice issued under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, is under challenge. Similarly placed persons challenged the notice issued under Section 78 of the Act and was dismissed by this court in W.P.No....
R.Ravichandran. Vs. the Corporation of Chennai, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred as against the order dated 22.03.2012 passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.Sr.No.11595 of 2012.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order of rejection of the plaint dated 22.03.2012 passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.SR.No.11595 of 2012, this civil revision petition has been focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:- For a judgment and decree as against the defendants 1 and 2 as under:- for a declaration that the impugned notice issued by the 2nd defendant dated 05.01.2012 is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law.- for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 or their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned pro...
The Madras University Staff Association. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
V.DHANAPALAN, j.COMMON ORDER1. What is sought for in all these Writ Petitions is a declaration, declaring that the impugned order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.402, Higher Education (H2) Department, dated 13.12.2006, in so far as it seeks to amend the service conditions of the University employees of the second respondent University, is ultra vires to the provisions of the second respondents' Universities Acts, particularly the provisions relating to Regulation of Service Conditions of the Staff of Universities, and without competence of executive power of the first respondent under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.2. Since all these Writ Petitions subsume a common question of law, they are being disposed of in common. For the sake of disposal, let me take the facts in W.P.No.49 of 2007.2.1. Petitioner is a registered association of staff of Madras University and approved by the Syndicate of the Madras University. Madras University is one of the oldest universities funct...
Ramasamy, and anr. Vs. Raja Real Estate by Its Partner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order passed in E.A.No.5 of 2010 in E.P.No.12 of 2005 in OS.No.321 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif of Avinashi, coimbatore dated 03.09.2010.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 03.09.2010 passed by the learned District Munsif of Avinashi, Coimbatore in E.A.No.5 of 2010 in E.P.No.12 of 2005 in OS.No.321 of 1995, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Synoptically and succinctly, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The decree holders being the revision petitioners filed an E.A. in the pending E.P. filed by them, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to locate the property concerned, but the said application was dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed.3. Heard both.4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled to get the decree ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Next ›
- Last »