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.
D.Antony Raj Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
PRAYER:This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 2321of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Block Development Officer with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior in the panel in Proc. Roc.No.PA2/3144/2000 dated 25.05.2000 with consequential benefits.O R D E R1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 24.10.1966 and promoted as Assistant on 30.01.1980, as Extension Officer on 30.01.1994 and as Deputy Block Development Officer on 12.07.1999. The petitioner thereafter was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer for the panel year 2000 2001. The petitioner was accordingly placed at Sl.No.13 in the panel of the year 2000 2001.2. The petitioner could not be promoted against the available vacancy, as the petitioner was served with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of...
R.Dhanasekar. Vs. the Assistant 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 petitioner on the basis of the report /decision of the District Level Vigilance Committee by giving reasonable time to enable the petitioner 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 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner informs this Court that nothings survives in the present writ petition for hearing. He has also made an endorsement in the relevant papers in the typed set that 'petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition'. Recording the said fact, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous one. Connected M.P. is closed. No costs....
Tmt.Anjugam. Vs. the General Manager, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 restraining the 4th respondent not to seize the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 07P 0207 and subsequently directing the 4th respondent to return the original documents deposited towards the loan account No.TSLVRIDH 00000093 on the file of the 4th respondent.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court, may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to restrain the 4th respondent from seizing the petitioner's vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN 07P 0207 and to further direct the 4th respondent to return the original documents deposited by the petitioner towards the loan account No.TSLVRIDH 00000093, on the file of the 4th respondent.2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had availed a loan, from the fourth respondent Finance Company, for purchasing th...
Arumugam Alias Kannan, Vs. Kaliaperumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by the Additional District Court, Puducherry at Karaikal, in E.A.No.14 of 2010 in E.P.No.52 of 2003 in O.S.No.45 of 2002.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by the Additional District Court, Puducherry at Karaikal, in E.A.No.14 of 2010 in E.P.No.52 of 2003 in O.S.No.45 of 2002, this civil revision is filed.2. Heard both sides.3. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereuner according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.4. Compendiously and concisely the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:(i) The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the suit O.S.No.45 of 2002 and got a decree. Thereafter, E.P.was filed for obtaining delivery of possession, after demolishing the structure concerned.(ii) At that time E.A.N.14 of 2010 was filed by the revision petitioner herein, who happened to be D1 in the suit. Preciou...
S.Rajasekar. Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue work order for carrying out the work of laying road in Puliyampatti Village Panchayat, Andipatti Village Panchayat, Paramanandhal Village Panchayat, Theethandampattu Village Panchayat, Anthanur Village Panchayat and Aswanagasuranai Village Panchayat.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue work order for carrying out the work of laying road in Puliyampatti Village Panchayat, Andipatti Village Panchayat, Paramanandhal Village Panchayat, Theethandampattu Village Panchayat, Anthanur Village Panchayat and Aswanagasuranai Village Panchayat.2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. The grievance of the petitioner has been expressed in the representation dated 9.3.2012. Copy o...
G.Ramasamy. Vs. Shri.Sivakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11 of contempt of courts Act,70/71, to punish the respondents for the willful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in Cont.P.No 1376 of 2011, Dated 01.02.2012 in W.P.No.29520 of 2010 dated 23.12.2010 and punish the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, it has been submitted that the respondent had already retired from service, and therefore Mr. M.Ravi, the present Tahsildar, had appeared before this Court, along with the relevant records. The respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner, dated 15.04.2010, stating that a separate patta cannot be issued in the name of the petitioner, in respect of S.F.No.345/2A, Kadampadi Village, Sulur, Coimbatore District, as the land in question is in the name of the Indian Air Force, as...
S.Vairakannu. Vs. Sivakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and order dated 21.03.2012 made in I.A.Nos.72 and 73 of 2012 in I.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2011 in O.S.No.136 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 21.03.2012 passed in I.A.Nos.72 and 73 of 2012 in I.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2011 in O.S.No.136 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. The germane facts as stood uncurtained in this matter could be encapsulated thus:The respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance and obtained an ex parte decree. Subsequently I.A.No.304 of 2011 was filed to get the delay of 1134 days condoned in filing, the I.A.No.305 of 2011 under Order IX Rule 13 of CP to get the ex parte decree set aside. Both those applications were taken together by the lower Court and in that order was passed to the effect that on deposit of Rs.20,000/- by the petitioner/defendant t...
S.Vairakannu Vs. Sivakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and order dated 21.03.2012 made in I.A.Nos.72 and 73 of 2012 in I.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2011 in O.S.No.136 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur.G.RAJASURIAORDERAnimadverting upon the order dated 21.03.2012 passed in I.A.Nos.72 and 73 of 2012 in I.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2011 in O.S.No.136 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. The germane facts as stood uncurtained in this matter could be encapsulated thus:The respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance and obtained an ex parte decree. Subsequently I.A.No.304 of 2011 was filed to get the delay of 1134 days condoned in filing, the I.A.No.305 of 2011 under Order IX Rule 13 of CP to get the ex parte decree set aside. Both those applications were taken together by the lower Court and in that order was passed to the effect that on deposit of Rs.20,000/- by the pe...
Bhuvaneswari and ors. Vs. the District Collector, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.7032 of 2010:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the 2nd respondent's order dated 15.2.2012 in Na.Ka.P2/664/2011 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to measure and demarcate the property of the petitioner in Survey No.64/1, 65/2 of Tharpadvedu Village and Survey Nos.32 and 70 of Vandanthagal village of Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.Prayer in W.P.Nos.7054 and 7055 of 2012 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to issue patta to the petitioners in view of the G.O.Ms.No.854 dated 31.12.2006 in New Street, Mallur, Salem Takuk, Salem District or to provide alternative place with patta to the petitioners in order to construct house before the eviction process will start.COMMON ORDER1. This judgement shall dispose of the following writ petit...
Srinivasan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to process the licence application dated 29.5.2012 given by the petitioner for running the timber or sawmills situated at 330/1, Kurumberi kottu Road, Perampet, Thirupathur Taluk, Vellore District in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules 2010 and grant licence without returning the same.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed under praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to process the licence application dated 29.5.2012 given by the petitioner for running the timber or sawmills situated at 330/1, Kurumberi kottu Road, Perampet, Thirupathur Taluk, Vellore District in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules 2010 and grant licence without returning the same.2. Mr.M.K.Subramanian, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) takes notice for respondents. By consent the...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »