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.
S.Muniskarthikeyan. Vs. Ashokkumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order rejecting the applications filed in E.A.SR.Nos.1902, 1903, 1904, 1905 and 1883 of 2011 in E.A.Nos.22, 56, 24, 25 and 22 of 2009 in E.P.Nos.40, 42, 41, 43 and 44 of 2008 in O.S.Nos.175, 209, 198, 210 and 226 of 1988 respectively dated 11.08.2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Alandur, Chennai.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 11.08.2011 passed in E.A.SR.Nos.1902, 1903, 1904, 1905 and 1883 of 2011 in E.A.Nos.22, 56, 24, 25 and 22 of 2009 in E.P.Nos.40, 42, 41, 43 and 44 of 2008 in O.S.Nos.175, 209, 198, 210 and 226 of 1988 respectively, by the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, Chennai these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.3. A thumbnail sketch of the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these revisions, in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus:The revision petiti...
G.Banumathi Vs. the Secretary to Government, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the jewels of the petitioner which were pledged by her on various dates totalling in all 76 grams of gold jewels to the petitioner by receipt of the loan amount together with interest.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the jewels of the petitioner which were pledged by her on various dates totalling in all 76 grams of gold jewels to the petitioner by receipt of the loan amount together with interest.2. Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner claims that he pledged certain jewels with the fourth respondent bank which was stolen and in spite of repeated request, the authorities are not taking any steps to return the same. A detailed re...
J.Seenivasan. Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling upon the production of the records relating to the order dated 14.5.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.2/2012 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling upon the production of the records relating to the order dated 14.5.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.2/2012 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner is running chicken stall within the jurisdiction of the second respondent and the second respondent issued a memo calling upon the petitioner not to conduct the business without proper licence and that he has to stop the same forthwith. According to the petitioner, he paid the licence fee on 20.1.2012. A copy of receipt dat...
Ms.Maritime Institute Association Vs. the Director General of Shipping ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Both writ petitions are 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 first respondent in Order No.2 of 2007 (in supersession of the DGS order No.1 of 2003) and quash the same insofar as it relates to Clause 4.23.COMMON ORDER1. W.P.No.12919 of 2012 was filed by the maritime Institute Association represented by its Secretary challenging Order No.2 of 2007 made in supersession of the proceedings of the Director General of Shipping Order No.1 of 2003 and seeks to set aside the same insofar as it relates to Clause 4.23. W.P.No.12920 of 2012 was filed by an institute known as the International Maritime Academy, represented by its Managing Director for the very same relief.2. Both writ petitions when it came up for admission on 5.6.2012, Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel took notice for the respondents. He also filed a counter affidavit, dated 19.6.2012. In the ...
K. Thirupathy. Vs. the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.133/2006 dated 28.06.2006 and the consequential G.O.(Ms)No.212 dated 13.09.2010 issued by the first respondent, quash the same as illegal and against clause 3(V) of G.O.(Ms)No.199 dated 12.08.1997 and in consequence there of pass an order directing the respondents to regularize the appointment of the petitioners from the year 2001 i.e., three years from their initial appointment with all attendant benefits.ORDER1. The petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.4026 to 4029 of 2012 and W.P.(MD)Nos.4030 and 4031 of 2012 were appointed as Sanitary Workers on 18.05.1998 and 03.03.2000 respectively through employment exchange on consolidated pay. Based on G.O.Ms.No.199 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 12.08.1997, they should have been regularized on completion of three ...
Ms. Chennai Corporate Club P. Ltd. Vs. the Health Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Ceritorari calling for the records in connection with the order dated 8.3.2010 made in No.27011, originated from the file of the first respondent, signed by the second respondent and to quash the same.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Ceritorari calling for the records in connection with the order dated 8.3.2010 made in No.27011, originated from the file of the first respondent, signed by the second respondent and to quash the same.2. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and runs the club by name Chennai Corporate Club and admits members on certain terms and conditions. The club is promoted for the benefit of the members, their family and guests of the members as and when they are invited. The club provides the following among other facilities i.e., Inhouse, Indoor games, Outdoor games, Swimming, Physical Fitness Centre, Tennis Court, Re...
P.indirA. Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4th Respondent/Block Development Officer (Regular) culminating in Na.Ka.A2/1194/2010 dated 03.12.2010 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to call for fresh tenders by following the guidelines of the 1st respondent in allotting the general fund to the petitioner Ward No.12.O R D E R1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that this Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. He had also submitted a letter, dated 9.7.2012, before the High Court Registry.2. In view of the same, the writ petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed....
Minor Kesavan. Vs. A.Sengodan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and award dated 27.01.2005 and passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.223 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Hosur.JUDGMENT1. On behalf of his son, who is injured in road accident, the father preferred this appeal as against the quantum of compensation awarded to his son.2. On 24.05.2001, when the boy Kesavan was walking along the road, the 1st respondent's vehicle dashed against him. He was seriously wounded. In this connection, in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 2001, totally, the Tribunal awarded him Rs.45,000/-.3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal has not taken into account the sufferings of the boy. It had granted lesser compensation.4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that on the evidence adduced, the Tribunal had granted him just compensation.5. The injured in this case is a boy. At the time of accident, he was 7 years old. Then ...
C.Kalaimani. Vs. Saroja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Civil revision petitions preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the docket orders dated 14.06.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram in E.A.No.322 of 2006 and the learned Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram in E.A.No.91 of 2012 in O.S.No.73 of 1995 respectively.COMMON ORDER1. These two civil revision petitions have been focussed by the revision petitioner/auction purchaser as against the docket orders dated 14.06.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram in E.A.No.322 of 2006 and the learned Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram in E.A.No.91 of 2012 in O.S.No.73 of 1995 respectively.2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, who would echo the cri de coeur of the revision petitioner to the effect that his client happened to be the purchaser of the property in the court auction sale; the judgment debtor took frantic steps to get the auction sale set aside; but her attempt ended in a fiasco. The order p...
Kittu Alias Varadappan. Vs. Nallappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 08.04.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal, in A.S. No.378 of 2002, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 05.12.1997, passed in O.S.No.645 of 1996, by the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.J U D G M E N T1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant as against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal, in A.S. No.378 of 2002, dated 08.04.2005, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the by the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal, in O.S.No.645 of 1996, dated 05.12.1997.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:-The plaintiffs originally filed a suit for bare injunction against the defendant, his men, agent and others, restraining them from preventing the plaintiffs in using the common pathway. The cause of action averred by the plaintiffs in the plain...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »