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.
A. Narasimmaraj Vs. R.G Nithyalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 31.01.2012 made in I.A. No: 47 of 2011 in H.M.O.P. No: 104 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani.O R D E R1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed questioning the order dated 31.01.2012 made by the Sub Court, Bhavani, in I.A. No: 47 of 2011 in H.M.O.P. No: 104 of 2011, in and by which a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each per month is ordered to be paid by the revision petitioner as interim maintenance to his wife and minor son from the date of filing of H.M.O.P. No: 104 of 2011 till disposal of it and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards legal expenses is ordered to be paid.2. Revision petitioner is the husband who filed the original petition before the Family Court, Salem, in F.C.O.P. No: 179 of 2009 for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty which was resisted by the 1st respondent wife. The said Original Petition was later transferred to the file of the learned Subordinate Judg...
Natarajan Vs. Thirunavukkarasu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order and decreetal order dated 04.01.2012 in I.A.No.357 of 2011 in O.S.No.15 of 2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.ORDER 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 04.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.357 of 2011 in O.S.No.15 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. For R1, RPAD returned as 'refused' and for R2, returned as 'left'. In fact, no notice to the respondents is also required, as this revision is focussed as against the memo which was filed by the petitioner was rejected. 3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus: The revision petitioner herein filed the suit as against the respondents herein, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell. Ultimately the suit was decreed. Thereafter, I...
Ms. Chaitanya Builders and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Chairman-cum- Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
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 give water and Sewerage connection to the petitioner premises situated at Plot No. 20 New Door No.12 Old Door No.34 Arch bishop Mathias Avenue comprised in R.S. No.3901/44 Block No.85 Mylapore Village and Taluk, Chennai 4 without insisting on Completion Certification from the 4th respondent.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to give water and Sewerage connection to the petitioner premises situated at Plot No. 20 New Door No.12 Old Door No.34 Arch bishop Mathias Avenue comprised in R.S. No.3901/44 Block No.85 Mylapore Village and Taluk, Chennai 4 without insisting on Completion Certification from the 4th respondent.2. In view of the Division Bench orders passed earlier in W.A.No. 1102 of 2007 dated 4.9.2007 and in WP No. 1368 of 2007, dated 20.4.2007, the fourth respondent was called ...
Pushpa Mary Peter Vs. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
Prayer:W.P.No.4592 of 2012Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare Clause (6) of the Impugned Regulation passed by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.ACAD-I (3)/18100/10 dated 14.01.2011 and the consequent Scheme introduced by the Expert Committee of the 1st respondent - University as highly illegal and unconstitutional and to pass such further or other orders. W.P.No.4756 of 2012Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare Clause (6) of the Impugned Regulation passed by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.ACAD-I (3)/18100/10 dated 14.01.2011 and the consequent Scheme introduced by the Expert Committee of the 1st respondent University as highly illegal and unconstitutional and to pass such further or other orders.ORDER1. These writ petitions have been filed for Writs of Declaration to declare Clause (6) of the Regulation passed by the 1st respondent - Un...
Durai Murugan Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
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 in Final opportunity notice in RC.No.249/2011/PUB/HQ, dated 25.04.2012 on the file of the respondent herein and quash the same and to direct the respondent to re-issue the final opportunity notices along with statement of accounts separately for the petitioner and his wife specifying the list of properties found to have been acquired disproportionate to known source of income of the petitioner.ORDER1. The petitioner is a member of the legislative Assembly from Katpadi constituency and claims to be the Deputy General Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a registered political party. He was also a former minister during the tenure of the previous Government.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner should be given one more opportunity by re-issuance of a fina...
Dr. S. Azhagu Sundarammal, M.B.B.S., D.G.O Asst. Civil Surgeon Governm ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation. 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.22.9.2010 in CC. No.188/1999. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.6.2012. 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, PREIDENT 1. The opposite parties, unable to succeed before the District Forum, are the appellants herein. 2. The brief case of the complainant: The complainant is the husband of deceased Thangam. The case of the complainant is that he admitted his wife Thangam, in the Government Hospital, where the opposite party is working, for her 3...
M/S. Raj Builders and Engineers Rep. by Its Proprietor Joseph MartIn V ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2012
(This petition is preferred by the petitioner, praying to set aside the order of District Forum in CMP No.275/2011 in SR.368/2011 dt.12.10.2011. 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 petitioner/ opposite party filed this revision, against the impugned order passed by the District Forum, by allowing the delay of 319 days, in filing the complaint, by condoning the delay. 2. The petitioner / opposite party, contended that the District Forum, without considering the contentions of the petitioner, in which the delay was not properly explained, and simply admitting the blame on the advocate for the petitioner, in failing to file the complaint, the petition was allowed, and praying to set aside the impugned order. 3. Per contra, the respondent/ complainant contended that since the delay was properly explained, as the case...
P.Mahadevan Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Writ petition 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 of the fourth respondent dated 19.08.2010 in R.O.C.B3/SR39/04 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 to mutate the revenue records by entering the name of the petitioner instead of 2nd respondent.ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 19.08.2010 in R.O.C.B3/SR39/04 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 to mutate the revenue records by entering the name of the petitioner instead of the second respondent.2. According to the petitioner, 68 cents of land in S.Nos.N3-4/11, N3-7/12 and N3-7/13A of Agastheeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil Village, belongs to him. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1213, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.09.1991 under Section 4(1) of the Land Ac...
K.Saravana Kumar Vs. State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the Statewide seniority list prepared as per G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 6.3.1999 and further provide permanent appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 7.8.2009.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate 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 second respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, and if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits, within a specified time. 3. The learned Government Advocate has no objection for this Court passing such an order.4. In view of the submissions made by the lear...
Rasipuram Chinna Mazjid Sunnath Jamath Vs. S.V.Thangam (Died)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final orders dated 21.10.2011 passed in W.O.P.No.39 of 1999 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 21.10.2011 passed in W.O.P.No.39 of 1999 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Wakf Tribunal, Salem this civil revision petition is focussed.2. At the entertaining stage itself, I have considered the matter after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and passed the following order without notice to the other side.3. The long and short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein, the property described in the W.O.P. is a Wakf property and there is no doubt about it. The Muthavalli representing the said Rasipuram Chinna Mazjid Sunnath Jamath also is the proper Muthavalli, over which there is no...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »