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.
Kala, Do. Santhana Krishnan. Vs. the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Show Cause Notice of the 2nd Respondent in his letter No.24046/CV.III 2010-5, dated 15.06.2012 and quashing the same as arbitrary and illegal.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI,J)1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Show Cause Notice in Letter No.24046/CV.III.2010-5, dated 15.06.2011, issued by the 2nd Respondent, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Dindigul District, should not be cancelled and further requesting the Petitioner to furnish her reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.2. The case of the Petitioner is that she belongs to Kattunayakkan Community, which is classified as a Scheduled Tribe. According to the Petitioner, her father born and lived at Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District, for more than 30 years and even in the ye...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muthulakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Fair and Decreetal orders dated 16.05.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.1611 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.V), Tirupur.JUDGMENT1. The insurer, disputes the award of the Tribunal on the question of negligence as well as quantum.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal took the income Rs.3,000/-p.m, as stated by the petitioner. However, also added Rs.2,000/-p.m, and made it Rs.5,000/- p.m. This is not warranted and this has resulted in granting them excess compensation. There is no written proof even for the said Rs.3,000/- p.m.3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the negligence on the part of the driver of the van insured with the appellant has been clearly established. Further, the Tribunal had taken the income correctly and inasmuch as the deceased has supported his family c...
A.Subramani. Vs. Rathinammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 10.2.2012 in I.A.No.336 of 2011 in O.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli.ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.2.2012 in I.A.No.336 of 2011 in O.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli.2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.23 of 2010 filed for declaration to declare title of the first plaintiff to the suit A schedule property and for permanent injunction against the defendants and also for declaring title of the second plaintiff to the suit B schedule property and for permanent injunction. The respondents/defendants filed written statement and contested the suit.3. Earlier, the revision petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.419 of 2010 in the very same suit for amendment of pleadings. The said I.A. ...
M.Regupathy. Vs. the General Manager and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
PrayerWrit 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 of the 1st respondent pertaining to his order dated 12.02.2007 in Ku.No.594/003088/T.S/TNSETC/2007 by framing charges against the petitioner and quash the same as devoid of merits and direct the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to work in the control section of the 2nd respondent office.ORDER1. The petitioner was employed as Conductor in the respondent Corporation. While he was in service, charge memo dated 12.02.2007 was issued making certain allegations. This writ petition is filed to quash the aforesaid charge memo.2. While ordering notice of motion on 06.12.2007, this Court did not grant any interim stay of further proceedings. On the other hand, the respondents were given liberty to proceed with the matter and the final order would be subject to the result of the writ petition.3. No counter affidavit is fi...
Angammal(Died). Vs. Palaniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, in E.A.No.237 of 2010 in E.P.No.53 of 2007 in O.S.No.85 of 2002.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, in E.A.No.237 of 2010 in E.P.No.53 of 2007 in O.S.No.85 of 2002, this civil revision petition is filed.2. Despite printing the name of the respondent, there is no representation. Hence, I proceed to dispose of the matter on merits.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:(i) The respondent herein filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETEDas against her mother-in-law, namely, Angammal, so to say, her deceased husband Angamuthu's mother.(ii) Preliminary decree and final decrees were passed, ba...
S.Mathevan Pillai . Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Under Secretary for the panel year 2010-2011 on par with his immediate junior and place him in the appropriate place in the Seniority List of Under Secretary.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. The petitioner has stated that he had passed S.S.L.C. course, under the old system (11 years). He has also acquired skills in Typewriting, both in English and in Tamil. He was appointed, as a Personal Clerk in the Secretariat service, under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955, on 15.12.1982. His service had been regularized, with effect from 25.6.1984, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department, dated 25.6.1984. Thereafter, he had joined ...
R.Gopal. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.(3D) No.15, P&AR, dated 27.06.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to release the terminal benefits, GPF, special PF, encashment of Earned Leave etc.PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned letter No.29054/Q/2008-3 P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same.PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned letter No.29054/Q/2008-4 P&AR Department, dated 27.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same.PRAYER: Writ Petition fi...
Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited. Vs. the President and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Prayer in W.P.19604/12:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records comprised in Letter No.30/U.E.The/Kana/Se.Mu.Na/Ka-1/12 dated 09.07.2012 of the first respondent and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the provision of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.Prayer in W.P.20571/12:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent Letter No.31/C/k.j-fz-br/K/j-fh-1/12 dated 12.07.2012 and quash the same.C O M M O N O R D E R1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have installed Wind Energy Generators.2. In W.P.No.19604/2012, the petitioner has established Wind Energy Generators after obtaining clearance from TANGEDCO and after getting necessary permission from the competent authorities, the wind mills were installed in March 2005 and functioning for more than seven years. The f...
B.Krishnamoorthy. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to initiate, proceed and complete the proceedings for determination of the compensation under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) with respect to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner measuring 1680 square feet in Survey No.231/2A, Eraiyur village (Vaipur 'B' Block), Sriperumbudur Taluk for the SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion Scheme-II within a time to be fixed by this Court.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to initiate, proceed and complete the proceedings for determination of the compensation under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) with respect to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner measuring 1680 square feet in Surv...
V.ChinnappA. Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2012
Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, dated 27.01.2006 made in Special Case No.15 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam.JUDGMENT1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the Judgment, Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, dated 27.01.2006 made in Special Case No.15 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, whereby the appellant / accused was convicted under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months SI and under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months SI. 2. It is a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the prosecution case, the appellant / accused...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »