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.
Nafisa Khuzema Zaveri. Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to forthwith consider the petitioner's application bearing No.11-3482678 dated 3.12.2011 for issuance of fresh Passport with correct actual year of Date of Birth as "16.08.1964" instead of "16.08.1954".O R D E R1. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent, Regional Passport Officer, Chennai to consider her application dated 3.12.2011 for the issuance of fresh Passport with correct actual year of Date of Birth as "16.08.1964" instead of "16.08.1954".2. When the Writ Petition came up on 18.06.2012, this Court ordered Notice on admission. On such notice, Mr.M.Krishnan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. He also filed a counter affidavit dated 5.7.2012. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner had earlier applied for Passport and travelled with two Passports, which are as...
Tmt.K.Ezhil. Vs. the Chief Educational Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to produce all relevant files in connection with impugned memo in A1/2008-2009 dated 12.09.2008 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent to issue suitable order to appoint the petitioner as a B.Lit(Tamil) teacher for the newly created post.O R D E R1. The petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent Private School. She studied a decree course in B.Lit through Distant Education Mode.2. The case of the petitioner was that she applied for the decree course only through the Head Master of the School and that, when she applied for the post of B.Lit Teacher, after obtaining the decree, the third respondent not only refused to consider her for the said post, but also issued a show cause notice dated 12.9.2008, calling her explanation, as to why, legal action should not be initiated for obtaining the...
A.Kamarunnisa Ghori. Vs. the Chairperson Prevention of Money Launderin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2012
W.P.Nos.1912 and 2870 of 2011:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 23.6.2010 made in P.A.O.Nos.4, 3 of 2010 passed by the first respondent confirmed in the order dated 12.11.2010 made in O.C.Nos.56, 57 of 2010 on the file of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to hear the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner in O.C.No.58 of 2010.W.P.No.13421 of 2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the Provisional Attachment Order No.02/2011 dated 28.3.2011 in File No.ECIR/01/CZ/PMLA/2009 (SKD) and quash the same.W.P.No.22062 of 2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certi...
Tmt.VasanthA. Vs. the Special Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents t consider the petitioner's representations dated 27.02.2003, 18.10.2003 and 19.10.2004 to settle the entire amount and other benefits for quick disposal.O R D E R1. The petitioner, has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider her representations dated 27.02.2003, 18.10.2003 and 19.10.2004 addressed to the respondents, to settle the entire retiral benefits.2. According to her, at the time of filing of the writ petition, she was working as a Sales Woman in Chinthamani Co-operative Super Market, Chennai. She married one Mr.Gunasekaran on 01.05.1987, who was also working as a Sales Man in the same super market. The marriage was performed at Thirupathi, as per the Hindu rites and customs and that they were living together as husband and wife. Her husband Gunasekaran became ill and he died on 26.03.2002. Therefore, she obta...
Ms.Sri Alumu Chits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.Ponnusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer.:- Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 14.11.2003 made in C.C.No.245 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore.J U D G M E N T1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2003 made in C.C.No.245 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore.2. The appellant as a complainant filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the appellant is a private company conducting chits, under the name and style of M/s.Sri Alumu Chits Pvt. Ltd., registered under the Companies Act. The respondent/accused was one of the subscribers of the Chit. On 05.07.1995, he had taken the chit amount and issued Ex.P1-Cheque for Rs.50,000/- drawn at Union Bank of India, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. The appellant presented the Cheque for encashment on 07.07.1995 before Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Uplipalayam Branch, and the same was dishonoured and returned with memo und...
Ks.Vijayakumari. Vs. Balamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer : The Revision Petition filed against the order dated 16.2.2012 in Tr.O.P.No.83 of 2011, on the file of Principal District Court, Erode.O R D E R1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.2.2012 in Tr.O.P.No.83 of 2011, on the file of Principal District Court, Erode.2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 5, 6 & 9 in O.S.No.441 of 1996, which has been filed for partition and separate possession and they are also defendants, 2,3 and 5 in the Suit in O.S.No.536 of 2011, which has been filed for permanent injunction. In the latter Suit, there is an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.903 of 2011. Pending partition suit in the stage of examination of P.W.3 before the Principal Sub Court, Erode, the second respondent in the Transfer Petition has filed a Suit for bare injunction, which is also pending before the First Additional District Munsif, Erode. Whileso, the petitioners have filed Tr...
Ms.Ubc, Rep. by Its Managing Partner. Vs. M.R.Govarthanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge of Erode District at Erode in C.A.No.70 of 2007, dated 26.09.2007 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode in C.C.No.243 of 2002, dated 05.03.2007.ORDER1. The revision petitioner herein / accused has preferred this Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.1603 of 2007 against the judgment made in C.A.No.70 of 2007,on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Erode confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.243 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II.2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:-The complainant is running a textile business. The second accused is the Managing Partner of the first accused firm. The third and fourth accused are the partners in the first accused firm and are responsible for the conduct of business of the day to day affairs of the first accused firm. The accused used to buy lun...
S.Sundaraj. Vs. the Special Tahsildar (La) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse the enhanced compensation due to the petitioners pursuant to the communications of the second respondent in Letters No/Plan/Collectorate/2009 dated 12.10.2011 and 24.1.2012 within a time to be stipulated by this Court.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse the enhanced compensation due to the petitioners pursuant to the communications of the second respondent in Letters No/Plan/Collectorate/2009 dated 12.10.2011 and 24.1.2012 within a time to be stipulated by this Court.2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 3 to 6. Mr.Diwakar, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents 2 and 3. By consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. The writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents t...
Ms. V.G.P.Housing (P) Ltd. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer: Petition in WP No.2055 of 2010 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records concerned with the notification bearing No.3/2009/F, dated 27.10.2009 issued by the second respondent and published in the 'Dinakaran' dated 6.12.2009 related to the land measuring 54/1 measuring 0.20.00(pt) Hectares, 54/2 measuring 0.33.5 Hectares 54/3 measuring 0.10.5 (pt) Hectares 54/4A measuring 0.17.0 Hectares 55/1 measuring 0.05.5 Hectares 55/2 measuring 0.05.5 Hectares 55/3 measuring 0.28.0 Hectares 56/1 measuring 0.12.0 Hectares 38 196 sq.ft. And 8,13,022 sq.ft., 56/2A measuring 0.21.0 Hectares 56/2B1 measuring 0.22.5 Hectares 56/2B2 measuring 0.01.5 Hectares 56/3 measuring 0.51.0 Hectares and 0.51.0 Hectares 56/4A measuring 0.38.5 Hectares 56/5 measuring 0.07.0 Hectares, 57/1A1 measuring 0.59.0 Hectare, 57/2A measuring 0.82.0 Hectares, 58 measuring 0.37.0 Hectare, 75/1 measuring 0.27.5 Hectare, 75/2 measuring 0.32.5 Hectare, 75/3 mea...
P.Damodaran. Vs. Shamim Akthar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the order and decreetal order passed in RCA Nos.222 and 225 of 2009 dated 22.11.2010 on the file of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai dismissing the above appeal and confirming the order passed in RCOP Nos.86 and 364 of 2008 dated 23.04.2009 passed by the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes Chennai.ORDER1. Heard both.2. At the hearing, Advocates on both sides jointly presented a joint compromise memo signed by their respective parties and themselves.3. Perused the joint compromise memo.4. I could see no reason not to record the same. Even though parties are not present, the Advocates are present and they affirm the terms and conditions as found set out therein and the same is recorded. Accordingly, three months' time from this date is granted for the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the property to the landlady, as per the terms and conditio...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »