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.
Gnanatamarai Vs. Y.Rajaram Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the judgement and decree dated 26.7.2010 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCOP No.1249 of 2008.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 26.7.2010 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCOP No.1249 of 2008, this revision petition has been filed.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus:(i) The respondent herein filed the RCOP for evicting the revision petitioner herein/tenant on the ground of additional accommodation, for enlarging his business, i.e. for storing rice.(ii) After hearing both sides, the Rent Control...
S.Mounaswaminathan Vs. Mrs.Anuradha Balaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.4.2012 in Application No.2024 of 2012 in C.S.No.278 of 2012.P.JYOTHIMANI,J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff in the suit (first respondent herein) for a direction against the second respondent/Election Officer to receive the second nomination form of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) and to include her candidature as one of the contestants for the post of Executive Committee Member in respect of the election to DRT/DRAT Bar Association that took place on 24.4.2012.2. In the suit filed by the plaintiff (first respondent herein), the relief claimed is to declare the act of the first defendant in the suit (second respondent herein), namely the Election Officer, in not accepting the second nomination form of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) for her candidature for election to the post of Executive Committee Me...
The Director Vs. the Presiding Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
PRAYERWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent made in his order in I.D.No.78 of 1994 dated 17.10.2005 and quash the same.ORDER1. The petitioner is an Industry. R2 is their workman. The second respondent was removed from service by an order dated 30.07.1990. Industrial Dispute relating to the non employment of the second respondent is pending adjudication in I.D.No.78 of 1994 on the file of the first respondent Labour Court. The second respondent questioned the fairness of the enquiry that preceded the passing of the dismissal order. The same was tried as a preliminary issue. The first respondent Labour Court passed an order dated 17.10.2005 on the preliminary issue holding that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly. The said order of the Labour Court is put to challenge in the writ petition.2. Heard both sides.3. I am not going into the merits of the case. I am...
R.Ayyappan Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the Respondents from removing the structure of the village Temple Kaliamman and Bhagavathiamman, which is comprised of Mariamman and Madurai Veeran Temple, and trying to cut the trees aged more than 15 years standing in the said temple, situated at Mullipadi Natham Survey No.573/1, Settiyapatti Hamlet of Mullipadi Village, Dindigul Taluk, Madurai District.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI,J)1. In this Writ Petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from removing the structure of the village Temple, namely Kaliamman and Bhagavathiamman Temple, and also from cutting the trees, aged more than 15 years, standing in the said temple, situated at Mullipadi Natham Survey No.573/1, Settiyapatti Hamlet of Mullipadi Village, Dindigul Taluk, Madurai District.2. Case of the Petitioner is that Kalia...
The Managing Director Vs. Manimehalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
PRAYERAppeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2005 dated 22.10.2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court No.2, Trichy.JUDGMENTB.RAJENDRAN, J.1. The State Transport Corporation has preferred the appeal as against the award of compensation of Rs.22,49,000/- for the death of a person.2. According to the appellant, the deceased was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing Registration No.49-A-0363 with a pillion rider. The accident took place near the Chatram bus stand on Trichy-Karur main road in Trichy. According to the appellant, the bus bearing Registration TN-45-N-1894 which was coming from the opposite direction i.e. from west towards east was also driven carefully and there was a collision. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the First Information Report lodged against the driver of the bus and come to the conclusion that the entire responsibility i...
K.Periyakaruppan Vs. Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.Pe.4/69390/09 dated Nil.03.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to forbear the respondents from in any way establishing or locating a TASMAC liquor shop cum bar in Shop No.6807 at Door No.597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.ORDERR.BANUMATHI, J1. In this public interest litigation petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings of the second respondent and consequently, forbear the respondents from in any way establishing or locating a TASMAC Liquor Shop cum Bar bearing Shop No.6807 at Door No.597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.2. Originally, Shop No.6811 was in Door No.597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District...
R.Subashini Vs the District Elementary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
JUDGMENTB. RAJENDRAN, J1. The writ appellant, aggrieved against the order dated 04.04.2012, has come forward with this Writ Appeal.2. The appellant would contend that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher viz., Secondary Grade Teacher on 07.03.1985. At the time of appointment, as she stood in the first rank she was appointed in the first vacancy in Turn No.17 (Backward Class) and the fourth respondent was appointed in Turn No.19(Backward Class). Both of them were appointed on the same day. According to her, her seniority and the fourth respondent's seniority were fixed as Turn Nos.17 and 19. Considering that she was in the senior most position, she was nominated as a Member in the School Committee in the year 2006. Similarly, Turn No.18, viz., P.Sarojinidevi was also nominated as a Member of School Committee. The Headmistress post became vacant on 01.05.20011 and the appellant was bona fidely expecting her promotion. But, to her shock and surprise, she was asked to put her signature i...
Govindasamy Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
PRAYERWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorari, calling upon the records pertaining to the impugned order of enquiry dated 20.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.ORDER1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of writ petition is the order appointing the enquiry officer. There is no interim order in the meantime. Hence, the enquiry proceeded further and based on the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service and writ petition was filed challenging the dismissal order.2. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that nothing survives for adjudication. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
C.Chellaswamy Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
W.P.No.29536 of 2011: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 relating to the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.DCS.1/112377/2001-5 dated 24.10.2002 and the consequent show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent herein in Letter No.36706/AA-2/01-23 dated 23.6.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to confer the promotion post of Agriculture Officer by recruitment by transfer of service to the petitioner on par with the petitioner's juniors who are all deputed by the Government for the degree course along with the petitioner and completed the degree in the year 1996 and confer all the attendant and consequential benefits with due regards to the petitioner's seniority including refixation of pay scales.W.P.No.29623 of 2011:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarif...
P.N.Peruvazhuthi Vs. the Railway Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the selection of candidates from amongst Advocates, pursuant to notification bearing No.1714/2005 issued by way of Newspaper Advertisement by the respondents, as null and void and to declare that the petitioner is most eligible amongst Advocate candidates called for interview, with full regard to his academic qualifications, merit and experience.O R D E RELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.1. The petitioner, a practising Advocate, is challenging the selection of candidates to the posts of Vice Chairman and Member (Judicial) in the Railway Claims Tribunal.2. The Ministry of Railways has issued a notification on 27.6.2005, inviting applications, in the prescribed format, to fill up the posts of Vice Chairman and Members (Judicial) against the existing and prospective vacancies at various Benches of Railway Claims Tribunal. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has submitted his application da...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »