Chennai Court July 2012 Judgments
V.K.Ramamurthy. Vs. Sri Jaya Educational Trust and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the District Judge, Tiruvallur, in I.A.No.80 of 2011 in A.S.No.3 of 2011.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the dated 28.3.2012 passed by the District Judge, Tiruvallur, in I.A.No.80 of 2011 in A.S.No.3 of 2011, this civil revision petition is filed.2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:(i) The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.203 of 1996 as against two persons, namely, 1.Jayalakshmi and 2.V.K.Ramamurthy, seeking the following reliefs:'to pass a judgement and decree against the defendants:a) for a declaration that the plaintiffs 1 to 7 are the owners of the suit property situate at 82, Maduraivoil Village, Chengai MGR District comprised in S.No.13/1A1, 13/1A2, 13/1B, 13/2 and 13/3 measuring an extent of 26.50 acres or thereabout more fully described in the schedule hereunder and conse...
Tag this Judgment!Varadhan. Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.01.2005, made in S.C.No.257 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Kancheepuram.J U D G M E N T1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 11.01.2005, made in S.C.No.257 of 2004, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Kancheepuram, whereby A1 and A2 were convicted for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against the appellants/accused. A1 is the father of A2 and brother of deceased Ravi. There was a land dispute in respect of ancestral property. There were palm trees in the lands. On 29.09.2003, A1 permitted the witness P.W.4/Krishnan to cut palm leaves fr...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gowri. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring that Rule 23(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964 and the consequential proceedings in P.R.No.F4/07/2012, dated 14.2.2012 of the second respondent as unconstitutional and ultra-vires.O R D E R1. The prayer in the writ petition is to declare Rule 23(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964, and the consequential proceedings in P.R.No.F4/07/2012 dated 14.2.2012 of the second respondent as unconstitutional and ultra-vires.2. The facts in nutshell necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:(a)The petitioner was initially appointed as Woman Police Constable Gr-II in the year 1997 and subsequently promoted as Head Constable on 25.1.2007.(b)While the petitioner was serving as woman Head Constable in the II platoon City Armed Reserve (AR), Coimbatore, the second respond...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Bharathi Mahalingam. Vs. Corporation of Chennai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to receive, process, consider and accord sanction for demolition and reconstruction at Block No.67 in Survey No.100 Part, T.S.No. 321, Block No.2 of Mullam Village, measuring an extent of 5574 sq.ft. Of land bearing "z" Block vth Avenue,Anna Nagar, Chennai 40 in accordance with law and more particularly without insisting on production of 'No Objection Certificate' from the third respondent expeditiously.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to receive, process, consider and accord sanction for demolition and reconstruction at Block No.67 in Survey No.100 Part, T.S.No. 321, Block No.2 of Mullam Village, measuring an extent of 5574 sq.ft. Of land bearing "z" Block vth Avenue,Anna Nagar, Chennai 40 in accordance with law and more particularly without insisting on production of 'No Objection...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rasheed. Vs. Muslim Mahadavia Jamath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 as against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Erode in R.C.A.No.6 of 2007 confirming the order and decree dated 12.04.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Erode in RCOP No.25 of 2005.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Erode in R.C.A.No.6 of 2007 confirming the order and decree dated 12.04.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Erode in RCOP No.25 of 2005, this revision is focussed by the tenants.2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively...
Tag this Judgment!P.Ravikumar. Vs. Velmurugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in E.A.No.511 of 2008 in E.P.No.309 of 2005 in O.S.No.1129 of 2002.ORDER1. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this civil revision petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. In view of the same, this civil revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!R.Palanisamy. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to reconvey the lands at S.F.No28/8, 32/3, 33/9, 33/17, 35/1 and 35/9 at the above mentioned village to an extent of 0.02.5 Hectares, 0.13.0 Hectares, 0.43.5 Hectares, 0.23.5, 0.30.5 and 0.50.0 Hectares respectively at Rettaipali Valasu, Rangampalayam Post, Muthampalayam Village, Erode District acquired for Muthampalayam Neighbourhood Scheme by considering petitioner's representation dated 16.3.2012.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to reconvey the lands at S.F.No28/8, 32/3, 33/9, 33/17, 35/1 and 35/9 at the above mentioned village to an extent of 0.02.5 Hectares, 0.13.0 Hectares, 0.43.5 Hectares, 0.23.5, 0.30.5 and 0.50.0 Hectares respectively at Rettaipali Valasu, Rangampalayam Post, Muthampalayam Village, Erode District acquired for Muthampalayam Neighbourhood Scheme by cons...
Tag this Judgment!RajA. Vs. the District Collector, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1and 2 to take appropriate action to protect the Okkur Lake situated at Okkur, Avudaiyarkoil Taluk, Pudukottai District in view of the Petitioner's representation dated 12.07.2012 within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI,J)1. In this Public Interest Litigation, Petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action to protect Okkur Lake situated at Avudaiyarkoil Taluk, Pudukottai District, considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 12.07.2012.2. Okkur Lake, Avudaiyarkoil Taluk is situated in S.No.87 - 239.94.9 Hectares. Fishing rights in Okkur Lake was auctioned on 26.6.2012 to the 6th Respondent and the auction was confirmed infavour of the 6th Respondent.3. Petitioner alleges that 3rd Respondent - The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Wo...
Tag this Judgment!S.Candrasekar. Vs. the Special Deputy Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in the acquisition proceedings in Award No.3/2011 Na Ka 405/2007/A-1 relating to the petitioner s property situated in the Moovarasampet village, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in survey No.5/1E2B dated 30.12.2011 quash the same as not maintainable.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had purchased an old first floor flat, measuring about 860 sq.ft., bearing door No.3/200, plot No.6, Mount Medavakkam Road, Moovarasampet, Chennai, on 5.3.2007. The petitioner had purchased the said flat from its previous owner, namely, F.Shazia Hasmath, by way of a registered document, bearing document No.754 of 2007, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Alandur.3. It has been further stated that the vendor of the property had purchased an undivided ...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director. Vs. theivanai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
PRAYER:- Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Tirupur.J U D G M E N T1. In this appeal, the Transport Corporation disputes the negligence question and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, when the Tribunal rejected the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, it ought not to have fastened negligence on the bus driver. Further, the Tribunal had ignored the deductions and taken into account the entire gross salary of the deceased. This has resulted in granting excessive compensation.3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the non-examination of the conductor tells upon the Corporation's case. The Tribunal had taken correct income and calculated the eligible compensation amount.4. At the time of accident, R.W.1 Murthy had driven the bus. Just before the bus-stop, the deceased was thrown out from t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »