Chennai Court July 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.
Fazila Husain. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent culminating in its order dated 25.11.2011 imposing sanctions on the petitioner for a period of 6 months and quash the same.ORDER1. The writ petition came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 19.04.2012.2. The petitioner, who is a minor represented by his father and natural guardian, has filed the present writ petition challenging an order dated 25.11.2011 issued by the second respondent Rowing Federation of India represented by its Secretary General at Chennai, wherein and by which a sanction was imposed on her for a period of six months with immediate effect and that she was prohibited from participating in the events conducted under the aegis of the second respondent or its affiliates.3. The said order came to be issued after a show cause notice was issued to her o...
T.Chellapandian. Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Prayer:- This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 3310 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to send the petitioner for 2nd medical test as per the Medical Code and further direct the respondents to select and appoint him to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service and grant him all consequential benefits.O R D E R1. The petitioner has qualification of S.S.L.C. but failed in Plus Two examination. The petitioner belongs to backward community. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade II in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.2. The petitioner cleared the physical test and also declared Pass in the written examination. The petitioner after passing in the written examination, was also subjected to medical examination where he was declared medically unfit ...
S. Mahadevi. Vs. the Manager, Canara Bank.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Prayer: This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to sanction the educational loan on the petitioner's Educational Loan Application dated 30.08.2011 submitted to the respondent and grant.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 writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the petitioner had submitted an application, dated 30.08.2011, to the respondent, for the grant of educational loan, for a sum of Rs.5,62,000/-, for pursuing her B.Sc., (Nursing) Course, in Sri Ramachandra College of Nursing, Porur, Chennai. However, the respondent had not passed any orders, in respect of the application, submitted by the petitioner, on 30.08.2011. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, before this Court,...
Singaravelu. Vs. A.Maiyappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Civil revision petition filed against the order dated 20.4.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in E.P.No.6 of 2011 in O.S.No.54 of 2006.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 20.4.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in E.P.No.6 of 2011 in O.S.No.54 of 2006, this civil revision petition is filed.2. The quintessence of the case of the revision petitioner, as put forth in this revision is to the effect that a money decree was passed as against him and straight away E.P.was filed; without giving proper hearing to him, who is the judgement debtor, the garnishee order was passed and now the revision petitioner's salary is being attached, even though he already discharged substantial portion of the decree amount.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/judgement debtor also would highlight that appeal was presented as against the money decree with the some delay and the delay was condoned and A.S. was numbered only yesterday.4. I ...
S.Lakshminarayanan. Vs. the Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to implement the order passed by the second respondent in Roc.No.8257/A3/06 dated 04.01.2007 and consequential order in Roc.No.864/a3/2007 dated 04.12.2007 of the third respondent and to relieve the petitioner from the School with his Teacher's Service Register with entries of his relief so as to enable him to join in the new School where his deployment is made and to direct the respondents to pay his unpaid salary from May 2008 to the petitioner within a stipulated period.ORDER1. The petitioner is a B.T.Assistant employed in the first respondent-School, which is an aided School governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.2. The second respondent passed an order, dated 04.01.2007 stating that the petitioner became surplus for the year 2006-2007, based on the staff fixation made, as per G.O.Ms.No.525, Education Dep...
V.Ramalingam. Vs. B.Baghiyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against the fair and decreetal orders dated 28.04.2011 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore in E.A.No.158 of 2011 in E.A.No.359 of 2005 in E.P.No.166 of 1996.ORDER1. This civil revision petition is focussed as against the order and decreetal orders dated 28.04.2011 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore in E.A.No.158 of 2011 in E.A.No.359 of 2005 in E.P.No.166 of 1996.2. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:a) The second respondent-Jayasundaram/decree holder filed E.P.No.166 of 1996 for bringing the property of the Judgment Debtor Baghiyam in the court auction sale so as to recover the decreetal amount. After receipt of the E.P notice, the Judgment Debtor engaged a lawyer, who filed vakalat; however, she did not file counter. Whereupon, th...
K.Chandrasekara Rao and ors. Vs. C.Masilamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Prayer: Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Under Clause 15 of C.P.C., against the Common Judgment dated 26.04.2005 made in C.S.No.980 of 1999 and T.O.S.No.32 of 2000 passed by this Court.COMMON JUDGMENTM.VENUGOPAL,J.O.S.A.No.125 of 2008:The Appellants/Plaintiffs have focussed the present Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2005 in C.S.No.980 of 1999 passed by the Learned Single Judge.O.S.A.No.163 of 2008:The Appellants/Defendants have preferred the present Appeal in weighing the Order dated 26.04.2005 in T.O.S.No.32 of 2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge.2.The Learned Single Judge, while passing the Common Judgment in C.S.No.980 of 1999 and T.O.S.No.32 of 2000, on 26.04.2005, has, among other things, observed that 'the Ex.P.1-Will dated 03.11.1986 executed by Ramalakshmi Ammal is a true, genuine and valid one and has come to the conclusion that Defendants 5 to 7 have purchased the property when probate was in force for valuable consider...
M.Sankar. Vs. Assistant Director and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Prayer in W.P(MD)No.1718 of 2012 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from posting or appointing the juniors or any other person or 3rd respondent in the post of Sanitary Supervisor, without promoting the petitioner as Sanitary Supervisor in the second respondent office. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2229 of 2012 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 10.02.2012 in Na.Ka.No.110/2011 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Sanitary Supervisor in the second respondent office in any one of the vacancy.COMMON ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Worker in the second respondent-Panchayat on 01.09.1988. The next promotional post is ...
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. Vs. Ms. Agnite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
PRAYER: This Company Petition is filed under Section 433 (e) and (f) r/w Sections 434 (i) (a) and Section 439(i) and (b) of the Companies Act 1956 for winding up of the respondent company.ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 433 (e) and (f) r/w Sections 434 (i) (a) and Section 439(i) and (b) of the Companies Act 1956 for winding up of the respondent company.2. It is stated in the company petition that the respondent company approached the petitioner for advancing advance, performance and financial guarantee favouring one Bunge SA. The petitioner granted the facility upto the limit of Rs.40,54,50,000/-.3. The petitioner states that the said Bunge S.A to whom it had issued guarantee favouring the respondent assigned the guarantee to ICICI BANK, Canada and the guarantee was also duly invoked by the ICICI Bank, Canada in September, 2008. In pursuance to the invocation of the guarantee by ICICI Bank, Canada, the petitioner paid a sum of USD 9,900,000 equivalent to Rs.45,87,68,821.12...
G.Baskaran. Vs. the Chief Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the order dated 21.2.2012 made in Proc.No.K4/3701/2009 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the shop bearing Door No.79, `G' Block at Koyambedu Whole Sale Market Complex, (Periyar Vegetable Market), Chennai.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 21.2.2012, without giving an opportunity of hearing, to the petitioner. As the said order had been passed by the first respondent, without following the principles of natural justice, it is illegal and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.3. Even though...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »