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.
M.Thillaikarasi. Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
PRAYER:This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 2889 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned show cause notice issued by the respondent vide P.R.No.12/PR55/2002, dated 09.05.2002.O R D E R1. The petitioner has challenged the show cause notice issued vide P.R.No.12/PR55/2002, dated 09.05.2002 under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D & A) Rules.VINOD K.SHARMA, J.2. It is not disputed that the shows cause notice has been issued by the authority competent to impose minor punishment. The only ground of challenge to the show cause notice is that it has been issued on non existing ground which do not constitute any misconduct under the service rules.3. The writ petition as framed is not competent as this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the right of employer to issue show cause notice unless it is proved to be without jurisdicti...
Bonton Software's Private Limited Vs. Dayavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 13.3.2012 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.274 of 2011 confirming the order dated 28.2.2011 passed by the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.2611 of 2009.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 13.3.2012 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.274 of 2011 confirming the order dated 28.2.2011 passed by the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.2611 of 2009, this civil revision petition is filed.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:(i) The respondent herein/landlord filed the RCOP No.2611 of 2009 invoking Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on two grounds, namely, 'wilful default' in paying the rents and 'perso...
L.Ganesh. Vs. the Tamil Nadu State Rep.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.199 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and quash the same.ORDER1. Seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.199 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, the petitioner, who is the accused in the case, has come up with this petition. The respondent is the complainant. The said case has been instituted on a private complaint alleging that the petitioner has committed contravention of the Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which is punishable under Section 6(2) of the said Act. 2. According to the case of the respondent, there were 24 workmen employed in a Public Limited Company known as "Rane (Madras) Limited, Ambakkam, Varanavasi Village in Kancheepuram District. The petitioner Mr.L.Ganesh is admittedly, the Managing D...
Trustees Body of Maharishi Trustee. Vs. C.Manoharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the return of plaint in O.S.No.919 of 2011 dated 06.01.2012 by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District.ORDER1. This civil revision petition is focussed as against the return of plaint in O.S.No.919 of 2011 dated 06.01.2012 by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District.2. Heard both sides.3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:(i) The revision petitioner herein filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:- To pass a judgment and decree as against the defendanta) for declaring the plaintiffs rights as duly elected office bearers of the Maharishi Education Trust and are entitled to manage the Maharishi Education Trust and all its affairs and assets, properties;b) gra...
Ms.Status Spinning Mills (P) Limited. Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the second respondent in memo No.CE/Comml/EE/R&C/AEE/F.R.&C/D.No.70-1/12 dated 12.03.2012 and quash the same as illegal.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the second respondent in memo No.CE/Comml/EE/R&C/AEE/F.R.&C/D.No.70-1/12 dated 12.03.2012 and quash the same as illegal.2. Thiru S.Sivanandam, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Thiru S.K.Rameshwar, learned counsel appears for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The writ petition has been filed by petitioner company who is consumer of High Tension Electricity. Petitioner also buy power through third party source, like, windmill generators/CPP through the Open Access facility provided by the respondents. This issue has been considered by this court in a batch of writ...
Muniraj. Vs.T.Viswanath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Prayer.:- Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 27.04.2005 made in C.C.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.J U D G M E N T1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of acquittal dated 27.04.2005 made in C.C.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.2. The appellant, as a complainant, preferred a private complaint stating that the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- on 05.12.2003 and agreed to repay the same within two months. But, he had not repaid the amount and for that, on 05.02.2004, he issued Exs.P1 to P3-Cheques, dated 05.02.2004, each for Rs.25,000/-, totalling Rs.75,000/-, bearing Nos.809251, 809253 and 809254, drawn in favour of State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore. The cheques had been presented on 05.03.2004 for encashment before the Indian Bank, Thally and the same had been returned on 13.03.2004, with return memos, i.e. Exs.P5 to P7, ind...
N.Ramu. Vs. Pillappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 2.1.2012 passed by the Subordinate Court, Hosur, in C.M.A.No.2 of 2010 confirming the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by the District Munsif, Hosur, in I.A.No.709 of 2009 in O.S.No.238 of 2000.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order 2.1.2012 passed by the Subordinate Court, Hosur, in C.M.A.No.2 of 2010 confirming the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by the District Munsif, Hosur, in I.A.No.709 of 2009 in O.S.No.238 of 2000, this civil revision petition is filed.2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petitione would run thus:(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:"a) to declare the easement right of the plaintiff over the cart track by way of easement of necessity.b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of the cart track.c) to awar...
R.K.M.Devamsam. Vs. the District Collector, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the act of the respondent in acquiring the land at Survey No.141/4, 362/2D, 363/2 measuring about 3.63 acres in Thuraimangalam and Elambalur Villages, Perambalur District now belonging to the petitioner alleged to have been acquired as per G.O.Ms.No.3089 P.W.D. Gazette Vix. No.Part II Section 2 Dated 04.07.1984 as stated at Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.no.12284 of 2010 is against the provisions contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, illegal, null and void consequently direct the respondents to re-convey the land at Survey No.141/4, 362/2D, 363/2 measuring about 3.63 acres in Thuraimanglam and Elambalur Village, Perambalur District to the petitioner.ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the act of the respondent in acquiring the land at Survey No.141/4, 362/2D, 363/2 measuring about 3.63 acres in Th...
S.Thameem Ansari. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
PRAYER: This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 1491 of 2003 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order of recovery passed by the first respondent dated 18.02.2003, with consequential direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from his actual date of promotion i.e., 20.08.1993.O R D E R1. The petitioner entered into service as Demonstrator on 27.03.1978. The post of the petitioner was re-designated as Junior Chemist by amendment of service rules. The next channel of promotion from the post of Demonstrator/Junior Chemist is to the post of Chemist.2. The eligibility condition for promotion was Diploma with two years service as Junior Chemist/Demonstrator. The petitioner was qualified to be promoted as Chemist, on completion of two years service as Junior Chemist/Demonstrator.3. By virtue of amendment to the service rules on 20.04.1988, q...
N.Subrayan. Vs. K.Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Harur, in R.E.A.No.47 of 2011 in E.P.No.9 of 2010.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order 31.1.2012 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Harur, in R.E.A.No.47 of 2011 in E.P.No.9 of 2010, this civil revision petition is filed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgement debtor, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the Executing Court, by its order dated 31.1.2012 denied the opportunity of the judgement debtor to highlight his grievance relating to the low valuation of his property and according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgement debtor, even the property was not properly described, including the extent.3. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Executing Court would exemplify and demonstrate, project and portray that the said order is not at all adverse to the revision petitioner/judgement debtor. The Executing Court...