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.
K.Gunasekaran Vs. Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.107/2002 dated 22.09.2006 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for Mandamus praying this Court to pass an order calling for the records pertaining to the order in Na.Ka.No.107/2002 dated 22.09.2006 passed by the respondent and to quash the same.2. The Petitioner's case is that the Respondent/The Executive Officer, Pothanur Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Pothanur, called for the list of candidates from the Employment Exchange to fill up the post of Waterman on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. The Employment Exchange sponsored list of candidates and the Appointment Committee conducted interview, selected and appointed the petitioner on 23.07.1999. All of a sudden, on 02.05.2000, his services were terminated on the basis that the Director of Town Panc...
Syndicate Bank Scheduled Tribe Employees. Vs. the General Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent not to take any disciplinary action against the members of the petitioner association on the basis of the report /decision of the District Level Vigilance Committee by giving reasonable time to enable the petitioner association to pursue the legal remedies available to the petitioner including filing of appeal before the State Level Vigilance Committee.O R D E R1. The Petitioner/Association has projected the present Writ of Mandamus, praying for issuance an order by this Court in directing the respondent not to take any disciplinary action against its Members/Association on the basis of a report/decision of the District Vigilance Committee by offering reasonable time to enable its Members to pursue the legal remedies available to the Members (including filing of an appeal).2. At the outset, this Court points out that the relief sought for ...
S.K. Venugopal Vs. the President
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondent from interfering with the petitioner;s property situated in survey No.156/3A measuring above 29 1/2 cents in Balaji Gardens, Pullylyon, Puzhal Union, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.O R D E R1. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that the respondent has expired two or three years ago and as such, the writ petition has become an infructuous one.2. Taking note of the fact that the respondent has expired and also the writ petition has become a infructuous one, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs....
R.Ravichandran Vs. R.Nagarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC for a judgment and decree a) declaring that the plaintiff's share as 1/4th in the suit property, morefully set out in the schedule hereunder and put the plaintiff in separate possession of his 1/4th share by dividing the suit property by metes and bounds; b) direct the defendants jointly and severally to pay Rs.14,84,857.86 together with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.10,91,807.25 from the date of filing this suit till the date of decree and thereafter also till the realisation of the above said amounts; c) directing the defendants 1 and 3 to render a true and proper account in respect of the rental collections from the suit property right from April, 2005 onwards; d) directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit and e) grant such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.J U D G M E N T1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the...
The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Arumugasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
PrayerAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.06.2011 passed in MACOP No.79 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Thoothukudi.JUDGMENT1. The appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a licence at all to drive the vehicle at the time of accident.2. The claimant filed a petition before the tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him. As against the claim made, the tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs.31,500/-.3. The specific defence taken by the insurance company is that the driver did not have a license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the insurance company pointed out that the admission made by the father of the petitioner / first respondent herein,that his son, who w...
P.Sundar Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
PRAYER: This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 1839 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner to the post of Office Assistant in pursuance to the letter of the second respondent vide A1/162/2001 dated 22.02.2001.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Office Assistant in compliance with the order passed by the Commissioner, Panchayat Union bearing No.A1/162/2001 dated 22.02.2001.2. The two posts of Office Assistants were kept vacant in the office of the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Rajakkamangalam, Kanyakumari District. The requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange for filling up the posts. The name of the petitioner was accordingly sponsored for appointme...
K.Munirathinam Vs. the State Bank of Mysore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in survey Nos 126/1B 1-51 acres 126/2-0 13 1/2 acres 126/3A-0.021/2 cents 126/3/3B-0.79 acres 126/-0 78 acres 127/1-0.32 acres and 127/2-0.26 acres of land at NO. 35 pangarshikuppam village Gudiyattam taluk vellore district.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, in fact, the writ petition in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in survey Nos. 126/1B 1-51 acres 126/2-0 13 1/2 acres 126/3A-0.021/2 cents 126/3/3B-0.79 acres 126/-0 78 acres 127/1-0.32 acres and 127/2-0.26 acres of land at No. 35 pangarshikuppam village, Gudiyattam taluk, vellore district.2. It is submitted that the ...
Ms.Amaravathy Spinning Mills. Vs. Superintendent of Market
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2006.O R D E R1. The petitioner has projected this Writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the respondent to consider its representation, dated 22.11.2006.2. The Respondent/Superintendent, Marketing Committee, Udumalpet, has issued a notice, dated 04.09.2006, addressed to the petitioner calling upon it to submit a copy of the agreement made by it and Super Spinning Mills, if any, for perusal of its office so that it will be able to know the nature of transaction, viz., change of place of ownership of cotton. Further, it also stated that if agreement is not made, then it directed the petitioner to report where ownership of cotton is changed between it with due proof within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice etc. Moreover, the...
S.Jeyaraj Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Prayer:This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.6725 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the respondent No.4 in P.R.No.37/99 under Rule 17(b) dated 15.6.1999 and confirmed in appeal in C.No.A6/Appl.54/99 dated 9.9.1999 by the respondent No.3 and confirmed in Revision in C.No.AP.III(1)/106/2000 dated 24.02.2000 by the respondent No.2 and confirmed by the respondent No.5 in Letter No.67645/ Police.V/2000-5 dated 12.12.2000 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate him to duty for all purposes with all consequential and monetary benefits with due regards to his seniority.O R D E R1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the punishment of compulsory retirement has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for quashing the order of punishment with all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner joined the service as Junior Assistant...
Tmt.Pushpa Vs. K.H.Raviendrran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC 1) for a declaration declaring that the alleged Partition Deed dated 25.10.1989 (vide Document No.3984/1989 S.R.O. Virugambakkam between the defendants 1 and 2 is sham and nominal and is not binding on the plaintiffs herein who are not parties thereto; 2) for a declaration declaring that the Sale Deed dated 25.10.1989 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of the 5th defendant (Document No.3901/1989 S.R.O. Virugambakkam) is sham and nominal and is not binding on the plaintiff herein who are not parties thereto; 3) for a declaration declaring that the Settle Deeds dated 20.01.2005 and 30.06.2005 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 3rd defendant and dated 09.04.2005 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of portions of 'A' schedule properties are sham and nominal and are not binding on the plaintiffs' joint 1/2 share therein as they are not parties thereto; 4) for passing of a prelimi...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »