Chennai Court June 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 State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.Thangapandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
PRAYERWrit Appeal (MD)No.361 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.06.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2989 of 2011 on the file of this Court.Writ Appeal (MD)No.364 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.06.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2888 of 2011 on the file of this Court.Writ Appeal (MD)No.367 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.06.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.4864 of 2011 on the file of this Court.COMMON JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.2888, 2989 and 4864 of 2011 directing the appellants to give notional promotion to the Respondent(s) taking into consideration their initial date of appointment and also applying the ratio of decision in W.A.No.500 of 2008, the Government preferred these appeals.2. Respondent(s) entered Service in Police Department on various dates and they were promoted as Head Constable, SSI on var...
M.indira Devi Vs. J.Rajasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Prayer: Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 380 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree dated 12.07.2010 and made in T.O.S.No.3 of 2006.O R D E R1. This application is filed by the applicant/defendant under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 380 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree dated 12.07.2010 and made in T.O.S.No.3 of 2006.2. The respondent/plaintiff had originally filed a testamentary original petition in O.P.No.486 of 2004 for grant of probate of the last Will of one Tmt.Soundaravalli Ammal, who is none other than the grandmother of the applicant/defendant. The said Tmt.Soundaravalli Ammal had died on 22.11.1996. When the applicant received the notice in O.P.No.486 of 2004, she had immediately filed her caveat along with the supporting affidavit as provided...
G.Chinnapaiyyan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22 (P & AR) Department dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.111 School Education (R1) Department dated 09.05.2012 forthwith and pay all the service and monetary benefits.O R D E R1. The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22 (P & AR) Department dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.111 School Education (R1) Department dated 09.05.2012 forthwith and pay all the service and monetary benefits.2.The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Sweepers through Employment Exchange as follows:Appointed onPlace of work1st petitioner19.03.1997Govt. Higher Secondary School, Vilappakam, Vellore.2nd petitioner13.01.1995Ranipet Municipality Middle School, Karai, Vellore.3rd petitioner13.01.1995Arcot Municipal...
Vadivel Vs. Saminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.1998 in A.S.No.104 of 1997 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.1997 in O.S.No.555 of 1987 passed by the Learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellant/1st Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.1998 in A.S.No.104 of 1997 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.1997 in O.S.No.555 of 1987 passed by the Learned II Additional District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai.2. The Resume of Plaint Facts (filed by the Appellant/ Plaintiff):The Plaint Schedule property and other properties belonged to the 3rd Respondent/1st Defendant. The 3rd Respondent/1st Defendant for himself and for 1st Respondent/2nd Defendant and 2nd Respondent/ 3rd Defendant minor sons Kuppusamy ...
V. Chandrakumar Vs. M. Rajathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal orders dated 17.02.2012 made in I.A. Nos: 161, 159 and 160of 2012 respectivelyin O.S. No: 105 of 2010 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tiruvarur.O R D E R1. These three Civil revision petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 17.02.2012 made in I.A. Nos: 161, 159 and 160 of 2012, respectively to receive additional documents, to re-open the evidence and to recall P.W.1, in O.S. No: 105 of 2010 passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvarur.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these Revisions are :"This Revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S. No: 105 of 2010 against the defendant seeking declaration and recovery of possession.The trial is complete and the suit is posted for arguments.At that stage, revision petitioner has filed three interlocutory applications to receive additional documents, to re-open the evidence and to recall P.W...
T.C.S. Textiles Private Limited Vs. the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent dated 12.10.2009 received by the petitioner on 20.11.2009 in his Pa.Maa.Se.Ma.15/2007 confirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 3.11.2007 in his Na.Ka.8078/2007/A2 confirming the order of the first respondent in his order No.M.T.R.3567/2007 A7 dated 12.7.2007 received by the petitioner on 30.7.2007 and the patta No.875 dated 17.7.2006 issued in the name of the Rathnasabapathi Rathna Textile Mills and quash the same and direct the first respondent to conduct the enquiry by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner with respect to the transfer of patta for the property situated at Nilambur Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District comprised in S.F.No.125/1 measuring Punjai Hectare 0.36.5 and S.F.No.126 New subdivision No.126/2 Punjai Hectare ...
Nagamalai Vs. P.Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against the order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode in I.A.No.266 of 2009 in O.S.No.33 of 2005.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Animadverting upon the order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode in I.A.No.266 of 2009 in O.S.No.33 of 2005, this civil revision petition has been focussed.3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, could be encapsulated thus:(i) The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit citing the defendants as representatives of Arunthathiar Street, Chinnagoundampalayam, Alampalayam Post, Pallipalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District and sought the following reliefs:- To pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendants- a decree for permanent injunction interdicting and restraining ...
P.Pachamuthu and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, Government, to ensure amendment to the Special Rules in the Tamil nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service or relaxing the requirement of Diploma in Agriculture and the maximum age in respect of the petitioners herein and consider them also for the post of Assistant Agricultural Officers.C O M M O N O R D E R1. These three writ petitions more or less arise on the same issue, namely, the petitioners in all the three writ petitions wanted for a direction to the first respondent / State Government to amend the Special Rules in respect of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service or relaxing the requirement of Diploma in Agriculture as well as the maximum age required for the post of Assistant Agriculture Officers in favour of the petitioners.2. In the first writ petition, W.P.No.14114 of 2008, there are thirty-th...
Arivusudar Ambedkar Mandram Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings Sa.Mu.A.No.389/2011 dated 12/3/2012 and quash the same consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to renovate the building at Anganvadi Centre No.224 at No.74 Langs Garden Road, Viratharajapuram, Pudhupet, Chennai-2 or direct the respondent to complete the building works within time limit stipulated by this Honourable Court and handed over the same in the evening times to the petitioner for provide the free education to the poor students.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first res...
Regency Officers and Workers Vs. Regency Ceramics Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.1. This application has been filed by the defendants seeking to revoke the order of leave to sue dated 04.02.2011 made in A.No.762 of 2011 in C.S.No.93 of 2011.2. Heard Mr.Ashokapathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Pass Associates, learned counsel for the applicants / defendants and Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.3. The learned counsel for the applicants / defendants would submit in his argument that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction and for other reliefs as stated in the plaint from doing strikes in Yanam and Karaikal and where the plaintiff's ceramic factories are situated. He would further submit in his argument that the plaintiff has absolutely no cause of action much less any part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain, try and adjudicate the suit. He would also submit that the respondent / plaintiff had stated in the plaint that cause of action ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »