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.
The Special Officer, the Madras City Co-operative Building Society Ltd ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 25.4.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming direction for registering the plot as per the advertisement made for the same and as per the allotment letter issued and to pay interest for the amount already paid because of the delay caused in executing the sale deed and also for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as costs. 2. The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant and contended that due to various administrative reasons, delay was caused and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the purchaser is not entitled for any interest paid for the cost of the plots due to delay and the enhanced rate of price from Rs.147/- to Rs.167/- per sq...
The Manager Regional Office, M/S. Ifci Ltd. Vs. R.V. Sudarshana
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-2012
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.3.2011 in CC. No.411/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The unsuccessful opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Heard bothsides. The additional documents filed before this commission, which are marked a Ex.B3 to B5, are also considered. 3. After careful consideration of the documents filed by bothsides, and after hearing both parties, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum deserves acceptance so far as the aw...
G. Nadimuthu Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay Rs.1,61,874/- for the extension period i.e., from 29.01.2002 to 19.08.2002 and Earned Leave Credit wages for 135 days (215.5 minus 80 days) with 15 percent interest.ORDER1. The petitioner joined the service of Transport Department in 1968. Later his service was absorbed in the second respondent Transport Corporation. He served in the second respondent Corporation until he attained the age of superannuation. He was to be retired on 31.01.2002. The first respondent by his letter dated 29.01.2002 instructed the second respondent to issue a suspension order against the petitioner, alleging that he has committed certain delinquencies. Based on the same, the second respondent issued the Suspension Order against the petitioner on 29.01.2002 and also retained him in service by an order dated 19.02.2002. Later, an enquiry was held, wherein it was found t...
Bharthiya Kisan Sangam Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.498/2011/Minerals, dated 20.03.2012, quashing the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to prevent sand quarrying operations in the Kanmai situated at Keelamathur village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. !For Petitioner ... Mr.Veera KathiravanORDER(Order of the Court was made by P.JYOTHIMANI,J)1. The present writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation by Bharathiya Kisan Sangam, Keelamathur Branch, Madurai District, challenging the lease granted to the 5th respondent by the 1st respondent, the District Collector, Madurai District, dated 20.03.2012, granting permission to quarry gravel in Survey No.20/2 at Keelamathur Village, Madurai South Taluk, in an extent of 0.54.0 Hectares, in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 19...
Munusamy Gounder Vs. Palani Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.1996 in A.S.No.215 of 1994 passed by the Learned District Judge, (Villupuram Ramasamy Padayachi District), Villupuram, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.1993 in O.S.No.184 of 1987 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tirukoilur.M.VENUGOPAL, J.1. The Appellant/1st Respondent/Plaintiff has focused the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.1996 in A.S.No.215 of 1994 passed by the Learned District Judge, (Villupuram Ramasamy Padayachi District), Villupuram, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.1993 in O.S.No.184 of 1987 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tirukoilur.2. The Plaint Facts (filed by the Appellant/1st Respondent /Plaintiff in O.S.No.184 of 1987):The 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and one Arunachala Gounder and Durai Gounder are the sons of their father Narayanasamy Gounder born through first wife Thanam Ammal. The Ap...
D.Mohan. and anr. Vs.The Sub Registrar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.17182 of 2011:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of declaration declaring the cancellation deed registered by the first respondent in Doc.No.1925 of 2008 dated 19.08.2008 and consequential settlement deed registered as Doc.No.2371 of 2010 dated 24.09.2010 as illegal, void and against the provisions of the registration Act.Prayer in W.P.No.5046 of 2012:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of declaration declaring the cancellation deed registered by the first respondent in Doc.No.1926 of 2008 dated 19.08.2008 and consequential settlement deed registered as Doc.No.2371 of 2010 dated 24.09.2010 as illegal, void and against the provisions of the registration Act.K.SHARMA,J.COMMON ORDER1. As the common question of law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, these are being disposed of by common order. For the sa...
K.Sashikaanth. Vs. K.Vijayalaakshmi, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Petition to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for their wilful violation of the order dated 19.08.2010 made in O.A.No.439 of 2010 in C.S.No.398 of 2010.V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.ORDER1. This petition is filed by the petitioner / plaintiff to take appropriate action against the respondents / defendants under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971, for their wilful violation of the order passed in O.A.No.439 of 2010 in C.S.No.398 of 2010 dated 19.08.2010 and to pass such further and necessary orders.2.Heard Mr.G.K.R.Pandiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff and Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents / defendants.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff would submit in his argument that the petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the suit property and while filing the said suit, he had filed two applications in O.A.No.439 of 2010 for the gran...
Armand Dela Victorire. Vs. Claire Josephine Carnot and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order and decree order passed in I.A.No.411 of 2009 in O.S.No.24 of 2007 (Originally O.S.No.313 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry before transfer) dated 14.10.2009 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 14.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.411 of 2009 in O.S.No.24 of 2007 (Originally O.S.No.313 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry before transfer) passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both.3. The facts as stood uncurtained in this matter could be encapsulated thus:Both sides in unison would put forth and set forth the factual position without any contradiction as follows:The plaintiffs got marked certain documents during trial and those documents are photo copies of letters. Subsequently, the same plaintiffs filed I.A.No.411 of 2009 under Order XI Rule ...
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Vs. K.Rangasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Civil miscellaneous appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 31.10.2002 made in MCOP No.345/97 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore.JUDGMENT1. The appellant transport corporation has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation, as against the award and decree in M.C.O.P.No.345/97 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore.2. The respondents 1 and 2/claimants have filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.6 lakhs for the death of one Mani alias Manikandan in the motor accident occurred on 12.1.1997. The case of the claimants is that on 12.1.1997 at about 10.50 P.M., the deceased was sitting and travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 37 K 7350, which was driven by one A.Joseph Vijayakumar and they proceeded from Coimbatore towa...
B.Clement. Vs. Mrs.Mcthel Thanga Annam Alias P.Mcthel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to transfer the case in M.C.No.3 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri to be tried with M.C.No.21 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.ORDER1. The Provision for order for maintenance of wives, children and parents envisaged in chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure serves a social purpose. It is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women, children and parents and it falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The intention of the legislature is to cast an obligation upon a person, who neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or children or parents. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the provisions of this Chapter constitute a complete code in itself and the proceedings referred to thereunder are basically of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »