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.
G.Sakthivinayagamoorthy. Vs. the Secretary, the Government of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second and third respondents so as to include the name of the petitioner G.Sakthivinayagam, sone of N.Govindasamy in the list for written examination to be conducted on 29.10.2006 and subsequent dates for the post of Assistant Engineer in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chennai.O R D E R1. The petitioner has filed the Writ of Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in directing the second and third respondents to include his name in the list for written examination to be conducted on 29.10.2006 and subsequent dates for the post of Assistant Engineer in the second respondent office/Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chennai.2. The Learned Counsel for the second respondent/Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chennai brings it to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was...
T.Elumalai. Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in No.3431/N3/2012 dated 30.1.2012 and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents to consider and levy the stamp duty in respect of the sale deed of the petitioner registered in Document No.625/2003 dated 7.4.2003 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein under the Samadhan Scheme introduced by Government of Tamilnadu in G.O.Ms.132 Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.10.2011.O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order No.3431/N3/2012 dated 30.01.2012 with the consequential relief in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to accept the offer of petitioner to remit two third of the difference of stamp duty chargeable on the value of the property as proposed by the Registering Officer and the stamp duty already paid. 2...
K.B.Mohammed Dhajudeen. Vs. Salem Mohammed Pura Parimala and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 4.11.2011 passed by the Wakf Tribunal Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Salem, in W.O.P.No.2 of 2006.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 4.11.2011 passed by the Wakf Tribunal Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Salem, in W.O.P.No.2 of 2006, this civil revision petition has been preferred.2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition, at the entertaining stage itself, would run thus:(i) The revision petitioner herein filed the W.O.P.No.2 of 2006 before the Wakf Tribunal, with the following prayer:"a) to direct the respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the petition mentioned property as a tenant within the time fixed by this Honourable Court.b) to direct the respondents to pay the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner." (extracted as such)by contending that he happened to be the tenant under the Salem Mohammed Pura Parimala Sunnath Jamath Masji...
F.Dominic Sagayam. Vs. C.P.Hariharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Civil revision petitions preferred against the judgement and decree dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Sub Court, Poonamallee, in RCA No.9 of 2008, confirming the order dated 8.2.2008 passed by the District Munsif, Poonamallee, in RCOP No.9 of 2007 and the order dated 8.2.2011 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee in E.P.No.118 of 2010, respectively.COMMON ORDER1. Inveighing the judgement and decree dated 18.8.2009 passed by the Sub Court, Poonamallee, in RCA No.9 of 2008, confirming the order dated 8.2.2008 passed by the District Munsif, Poonamallee, in RCOP No.9 of 2007, C.R.P.No.3564 of 2009 is filed and as against the order dated 8.2.2011 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee in E.P.No.118 of 2010, C.R.P.No.677 of 2011 is filed.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereinunder according to their ranking before the Rent Controller.3. The long and short of the germane facts could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:(i) The responde...
J.K.Sayani. Vs. the Commissioner, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2006 and 17.02.2006 and the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2006.O R D E R1. The petitioner has projected this Writ of Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent/Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Chennai to consider his representation dated 01.02.2006 and 17.02.2006. Also, the petitioner has sought for an issuance of direction to the Second Respondent/Executive Officer, Sri Ekambareswarar Devasthanam, Mint Street, Chennai to consider his representation dated 27.02.2006.2. According to the petitioner, he is carrying on business of plastic fancy items under the name and style of "Plastometal" ever since 1950. He became a tenant of Mrs.Manickammal, a lessee of the ...
Jayashree Vs. S.Suresh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Civil miscellaneous appeal preferred under Order 19 of Family Court Act against the order and decree dated 21.5.2010 made in FCOP No.78 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Salem.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.NAGAPPAN, J.)1. This appeal is preferred against the order and decree dated 21.5.2010 made in F.C.O.P. No.78 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Salem.2. The respondent in the Original Petition is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the Original Petition.3. The respondent/petitioner filed Original Petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between him and the appellant/respondent which was held on 22.8.1993 at Seshadri Mahal, Tatabad, Coimbatore 12.4. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage took place on 22.8.1993 and they along with the parents of the petitioner lived as a joint family and the resp...
R. Ramanujam. Vs. Teacher's Recruitment Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (History).O R D E R1. The petitioner has projected this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus in directing the respondents to appoint him as B.T. Assistant (History).2. The petitioner applied to the First respondent/Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai for appointment/post in pursuance of the applications called for by the first respondent from qualified persons in December, 2005. The examination was conducted on 8.1.2006 and results were published on 12.1.2006 and the petitioner secured 75 marks out of 150.3. According to the petitioner, he passed old pattern SSLC in the year 1971 and Pre University course in 1972. He acquired B.A. degree qualification in Tourism in the year 1977 from Annamalai University. He could not get any employment and joined as Noon Meal Organizer in 1987 and workin...
K.Sundararaj. Vs. K.Vadivel Muruganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Registry, Sub-Court, Udumalpet, in I.A.CFR No.6529 of 2009 in O.S.No.19 of 2008.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Registry, Sub-Court, Udumalpet, in I.A.CFR No.6529 of 2009 in O.S.No.19 of 2008, this civil revision petition has been preferred.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition, at the entertaining stage itself, would run thus:The revision petitioner herein/the original defendant No.8 in the suit O.S.No.19 of 2008, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C.to get the ex-parte decree set aside, which was returned with the following endorsements:Rtd:1) How this petition is maintainable since the above suit was disposed as AFT on 7.9.09.2) otherwise notice to be given.Sd/-9.1.2010Reted:Corrections are to be attested.Time one month.Sd/-31.3.Returned:...
Dr.Puvanalingam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
W.P.Nos.14724 and 14725 of 2012 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the records pertaining to the issue of prospectus by the second respondent dated 21.5.2012 for D.M / M.Ch course and quash the condition No.5(b) and 17 in the prospectus so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently to direct the second and third respondents to issue the hall ticket and allow the petitioner to take the entrance examination and if selection admit for D.M. / M.Ch course.COMMON ORDER1. Both writ petitions are filed by the two Doctors seeking to challenge condition Nos.5(b) and 17 in the prospectus and for consequential direction to the second and third respondents to issue hall tickets for writing the entrance examination and if selected to admit them in the D.M. / M.Ch course.2. The two clauses, i.e. 5(b) and 17 as referred to in the prospectus reads as follows :"5(b)Non Service candidates who h...
Fenner (India) Limited. Vs. the Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3, to provide police protection to the petitioner's industry to run peacefully with its staff and willing workers and thereby suitably prevent the 4th to 11th respondents unions, their members, office bearers, agents and outside supporter, from assembling within a radius of 300 meters of the petitioner's factory premises from preventing the free ingress and egress of men, materials and vehicles.O R D E R1. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in the process of manufacturing yarn, exported to various countries. The company is also a supplier to inland markets.2. According to the petitioner, the company has invested 15 crores for building and advanced automatic imported machinery to meet out the international quality. The employees of the company are paid wages, as per the settlement arrived at, un...