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.
S.Sridharan Vs. the Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the Show cause notice issued in letter/memorandum no.4452/2011-5, dated 6.5.2011 and also the Order No.49, dated 12.5.2011, both issued by the erstwhile Secretary immediate to the incumbent first respondent, quash the same regarding regularization of services of the petitioner w.e.f 28.3.2002 and second respondent w.e.f 6.2.2001 in the post of Reporter and placing the second respondent as senior to the petitioner in the post of Reporter and direct the first respondent to maintain the same inter se seniority already issued in Office Order No.561/2003-1, TNLAS (OP I) dted 8.4.2003 vis a vis the petitioner and second respondent following the regularization w.e.f 27.3.2000, having placed the petitioner, senior to the second respondent.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appe...
Thangavelu Vs. R.Natesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the Principal District Court, Namakkal, in I.A.No.2 of 2012 in A.S.No.105 of 2011.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the Principal District Court, Namakkal, in I.A.No.2 of 2012 in A.S.No.105 of 2011, this civil revision is filed.2. Heard both sides.3. The facts as stood uncurtained in this matter could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:(i) O.S.No.18 of 2008 was filed by the revision petitioners herein for declaration and for injunction in respect of an immovable property. During the pendency of the suit, expert opinion was obtained in respect of the purported signature of the Power of Attorney of the vendor in the concerned sale deed, executed in favour of D1 and D2 therein. Subsequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.(ii) D1 and D2 filed the appeal in A.S.No.105 of 2011 as against the judgement and decree passed in the said suit. The said A.S. is still pend...
Nut Products Company Vs. Christopher
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
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 2nd respondent pertaining to its preliminary award dated 11.10.2011 in Industrial Dispute No.14/2010 on its file, quash the same, dismissing the I.D.ORDER1. The petitioner is an Industry. R1 is their workman. The first respondent was removed from service by an order dated 11.06.2009. Industrial Dispute relating to the non employment of the first respondent is pending adjudication in I.D.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the second respondent Labour Court. The first respondent questioned the fairness of the enquiry that preceded the passing of the dismissal order. The same was tried as a preliminary issue. The second respondent Labour Court passed an order dated 11.10.2011 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...
Arumugam Vs. State Through
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
PRAYERCriminal Appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Dindigul, Dindigul District in S.C.No.107/2004, dated 11th February 2005.JUDGMENT1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Dindigul, Dindigul District, dated 11th February 2005 made in S.C.No.107/2004, convicting the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 304(2) I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) jointly as compensation to the wife and children of the deceased, in default each of them to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years imprisonment.2. The facts of the case is that when the deceased was playing with marbles along with two others, at that...
P.Muthuvel Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
PRAYERWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.A5/56378/2009 dated 26.05.2011 and the consequential order of the respondent vide his proceedings in R.O.C.A6/26036/2011 dated 30.05.2011 and R.O.C.A6/26036/2011 dated 31.05.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to retire from service with all monetary benefits.ORDER1. The petitioner was working as a Headquarters Tahsildar, Tuticorin at the relevant point of time. He was issued a charge memo, dated 16.12.2003 under Rule 17(b) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.1917 of 2004, to quash the aforesaid charge memo and the writ petition was dismissed on 18.07.2007.2. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.577 of 2008 against the aforesaid order dated 18.07.2007 in W.P.(MD) ...
K.Athimoolam Vs. the Director of Collegiate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
PRAYERWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.9375/D4/2009 and quash the same as illegal and consequently reinstate the petitioner with all the monetary benefits.ORDER1. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Commerce. He also passed Senior Grade in English Typewriting and Junior Grade in Tamil Typewriting.2. The second respondent issued an advertisement in 'The Hindu' newspaper on 29.10.2009, calling for applications for the post of Typist in Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Memorial College at Kamudhi. The qualification required for the said post is that the candidate should have passed S.S.L.C. and also passed Senior Grade in Tamil Typewriting and Junior Grade in English Typewriting or Senior Grade in Tamil Typewriting and Junior Grade in English typewriting. The petitioner ...
S.Panjavarnam Vs. the Commissioner,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.A5/3338/2001 dated 22.3.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.O R D E R1. The petitioner was appointed as Cook Assistant at the Panchayat Union Middle School, Melapoongudi, Sivagangai District. She worked there for four years.2. The petitioner submits that she was also known as 'Vijaya'. In the school record, the name of the petitioner was entered as 'Panjavarnam', whereas in the ration card it was mentioned as 'Vijaya'.3. It is the case of the petitioner, that one Mr.Killadi Arumugam attempted to misbehave with her and her eldest daughter. On her resistance, the said Killadi Arumugam threatened her, that he would take steps to remove her from service by using his political contacts. T...
K.Suresh Vs. M.Krishnasami.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.334 of 2005:-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2004 in C.A.No.97 of 2003 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 04.03.2003 in C.C.No.8325 of 2003 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and enhance the compensation .Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2006:-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Dis No.3918 of 2005 in C.C.No.8325 of 2000, dated 18.07.2005 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, set-aside the same and permit the revision petitioner to withdraw the compensation as awarded to the revision petitioner in C.C.No.8325 of 2000.COMMON ORDER1. The revision petitioner herein / respondent / complainant has preferred the Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.334 of 2005 against the order of conviction and sentence da...
New Era Engineering Co. and ors. Vs. Ghyas Hashim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority), (VII Judge Incharge), in M.P.No.7 of 2011 in R.C.A.No.1397 of 2004.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority), (VII Judge Incharge), in M.P.No.7 of 2011 in R.C.A.No.1397 of 2004, this civil revision is filed.2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:(i) The respondent herein/landlord filed the RCOP No.552 of 2003 for evicting the revision petitioners herein/tenants on the ground of sub-letting the premises and it was ordered, as against which, R.C.A.No.1397 of 2004 was filed.(ii) During the pendency of the RCA, M.P.No.7 of 2011 was filed by the respondent herein/landlord for issuing direction to the tenants to pay the rent. Whereupon, the appellate forum u...
Arulmigu Vinayakar Teacher Training Institute. Vs. the Director of Tea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to publish the results for the 45 studentts of the 2nd year of 2010-2011 of the petitioner institution and issue the mark list and the certificates to the students in respect to the D.T.E.d course.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had made a request, on 08.03.2011, for the shifting of the institute to the new premises, along with a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. However, the fourth respondent had not passed any order, till date, based on the request made by the petitioner.3. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the fourth respondent viz., the Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »