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.
R. Venkatachalamoorthy Vs. Mrs. R. Rajini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 25.01.2012 made in I.A. No: 599 of 2011 in O.S. No: 811 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No: II, Coimbatore.O R D E R1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed calling in question the order dated 25.01.2012 passed in I.A. No: 599 of 2011 in O.S. No: 811 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No: 2, Coimbatore.2. Revision Petitioner is the 1st defendant in the suit O.S. No: 811 of 2007. Plaintiff is the 1st respondent herein. When the suit was posted in the list on 22.09.2010 for trial, as the plaintiff was not available, her counsel reported no instruction and the suit was dismissed for default. Subsequently, after coming to know that the suit has been dismissed for default, plaintiff filed I.A. No: 599 of 2011 to restore the suit. The reason for non appearance on 22.09.2010 was ...
Tanima Rituparna Barman Roy Vs. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Prayer :Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of declaration, declaring the Clause 6 of the impugned resolution passed by the first respondent in Rc.No.ACAD-I(3)/18100/10 dated 14.1.2011 and the consequent scheme introduced by the Expert Committee of the first respondent University as highly illegal and unconstitutional.COMMON ORDER1. Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. Heard both sides.2. The present two petitioners were the students of Dental course, having gone through the course from the third respondent college affiliated to the first respondent University. They could not complete the course within the time frame fixed by the University. They were writing supplementary examinations conducted by the University from time to time and even after 10 years from entry into the study, they could not complete the course. At that juncture, the respondent University brought a regulation known as 'double the duration of t...
D.Vinoth. Vs. M.K.Arulswamy, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct early disposal of O.S.No.178 of 2008 on the file of learned District Munsif Court at Ambattur.ORDER1. This civil revision petition is focussed seeking direction to dispose of O.S.No.178 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Ambattur.2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the suit O.S.No.178 of 2008 is one for permanent injunction; however, the lower Court is not taking steps to dispose of the matter expeditiously.3. Instead of probing into the averments of the petitioner in detail, I would like to give the following direction:The lower Court shall do well to see that the suit is disposed of on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Accordingly, these civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs....
Kamalam Vs. C.K.Padmavathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S. No.44 of 2004, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.12.2003, passed in O.S. No.1191 of 1996, by the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.J U D G M E N T1. The father of the appellant herein - late C.A.Krishnan, as plaintiff No.1 along with his wife/plaintiff No.2 late Seethalakshmi and daughter/plaintiff No.3 (the present appellant), filed a suit in O.S. No.1191 of 1996 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, for a declaration that the suit property belongs absolutely to the plaintiffs, for possession of the said property to be delivered by the defendants and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from in any way encroaching and putting up any construction or altering the physical features of the property pending suit. The first plaintiff based his claim by pleading that the suit...
P.Selvarajan. Vs. the Commissioner, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 09.04.2012 and to proceed with the cancellation of the lease granted to the second respondent in respect of open space vegetable shop situated at Block No.30, Ward No.26, Gandhi Nagar, Attur for the violation of the lease conditions.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 09.04.2012 and to proceed with the cancellation of the lease granted to the second respondent in respect of open space vegetable shop situated at Block No.30, Ward No.26, Gandhi Nagar, Attur for the violation of the lease conditions.2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. The notice to the second respondent has not been served. Howe...
R.Kaviselvan Vs. the 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 Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Orders passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Letters No.ANA2/5565/02 dated .12.2008 served on all the petitioners individually, examine them and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to allot the Shop Site 5 AA 332, Public Purpose Site VII AA 362, Public Purpose Site X AA 365, Public Purpose Site II AA 357 and Shop Site 2 AA 329 in the Senniamman Koil Scheme, Anna Nager Division to the Petitioners respectively.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the proceedings of the second respondent, informing the petitioners that the open auctions conducted, on 12.11.2008 and 13.11.2008, in respect of the housing plots, in Senniamman Koil Scheme, of the respondent housing board.2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is th...
M.Ravi Vs. Devagi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code as against the order dated 06.03.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Polur, Tiruvannamalai Taluk in I.A.No.248 of 2011 in O.S.No.260 of 1992.ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. Animadverting upon the order dated 06.03.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Polur, Tiruvannamalai Taluk in I.A.No.248 of 2011 in O.S.No.260 of 1992, this civil revision petition has been focussed.3. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking in the suit.4. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:(i) The respondents 1 and 2 herein, viz., Devagi and Suresh filed the suit in O.S.No.260 of 1992 seeking maintenance for Devagi as well as for Suresh as against D1 and also for partition of minor Suresh's 4/21 shares in the property described in the ...
K.Niranjani Vs. R.T.Dinesh, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Prayer:Criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 19.10.2010, in M.P.No.5872 of 2010 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. J U D G M E N T1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of dismissal dated 19.10.2010, in M.P.No.5872 of 2010 in D.V.A.C.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, stating that on the absence of complainant, the complaint has been dismissed and the accused were acquitted.2. The appellant/wife had filed an application against the respondents herein, who is her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, under Sections 12 R.W.S. 18, 19, 20(1) & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was taken on file in D.V.A.C.No.1 of 2010 and interim order of Rs.25,000/- per month has been awarded to the wife as maintenance and the right of residence was ordered. As per the order dated 0...
Mohammed Rafiq, Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining the Land acquisition proceedings, Ref LA 31664/83 dated 6.2.84 pertaining to lands in Survey No.21/1, measuring 1 Acres 46 cents and Survey No.21/3 measuring 48 cents, situated Lalpet Village, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District made in Award No.5/86 and to quash the Land Acquisition proceedings with reference No.L.A.31664/83 directing the respondents 3 and 4 to reconvey the land to the petitioner thereby to effect the same in the revenue records of the respondents 3 and 4.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the land acquisition proceedings, Ref LA 31664/83 dated 6.2.84 pertaining to lands in Survey No.21/1, measuring 1 Acres 46 cents and Survey No.21/3 measuring 48 cents, situated Lalpet Village, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District...
S. Jamal Ambalam Khaja Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
1. Heard both sides at length on 9.4.2012 and again on 11.5.2012. Initially on 9.4.2012, the learned Advocate Shri K.R. Natarajan raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the seizure itself was illegal as it was effected by DRI officers having no legal authority to seize the impugned goods. He stated that the adjudicating Commissioner has not dealt with this issue appropriately as may be seen from paragraph 4 of his findings in the impugned order where he has merely referred to a standing order dated 1.8.1963 under which all officers except clerks of the Preventive Department have been declared as proper officers for the purpose of Section 110 relating to seizure of goods. He states that the DRI officers are not officers of the Preventive Department and hence the said standing order has no application in respect of DRI officers. He further states that only recently the DRI officers have been given powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, by issue of Notification No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »