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.
T.M.Ramamoorthy. Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
W.P.No.9776 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of declaration, declaring Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as ultravires, unconstitutional and against the employees' interest.W.P.No.11692 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relevant to the order in I.D.No.146/2001 dated 24.12.2007 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the rule of law, natural justice and against the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thereby direct the second respondent to promote the petitioner as Assistant Foreman in the existing vacancy in the second respondent's company and pay back all the service benefits in the promotion post.COMMON ORDER1. These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner. In the first writ petition in W.P.No.9776 of 2008, the petitione...
R.Sivakumar. Vs. Sasikala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.a.No.2121 of 2011 in FCOP No.2375 of 2011.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.a.No.2121 of 2011 in FCOP No.2375 of 2011, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. At the hearing, it is found that the respondent-Sasikala is absent despite she having been served in person. Earlier, it appears one Advocate's name M/s.M.Rajendran and others for the respondent, was printed in the cause list; but no Advocate appears to have filed any vakalat. Today, the name of such advocates viz., M/s.M.Rajendran and Venkatesan representing the respondent, by way of abundant caution have been printed as the ones appearing for the respondent along with the nam...
Malliga Wife of C.Jayaraman. Vs. Nagammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Second Appeal No.90/2006 is filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.54 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet dated 12.9.2005 confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.221/1995 renumbered after remand as O.S.No.266/1996 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Arcot dated 28.11.2003 insofar as declaring the title and right of the second defendant to the extent of half share in the suit property even after the life time of the first defendant. Second Appeal No.522/2066 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.9.2005 passed in A.S.No.25 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet modifying the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 28.11.2003 passed in O.S.No.266 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Arcot.J U D G M E N T1. Second Appeal No.90/2006 is filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.54 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet dated 12.9.20...
Madasamy. Vs. State Rep. by Its Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
J U D G M E N T1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.03.2007 made in S.C.No.221 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore, whereby, A2 and A3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment.2. On 27.11.2004, at 12.30 p.m. when P.W.2 was proceeding towards Akkamalai Estate carrying the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to disburse wages to the workers, working at Akkamalai Estate, Accused 1 to 4, with an intention to stole the above amount, conspired the plan and to execute the same, A2 and A3 assaulted P.W.2 with knife and wooden log and robbed the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- thereby, A2 and A3 committed offences under Sections 394 and 392 r/w. 397 IPC and A1 and A4 committed offences under Section 392 of IPC.3. The case of the prosecution is...
A.John Paul. Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police to register the case based on the C.S.R.No.48/2012 dated 28.03.2012 and investigate the probe.ORDER1. Seeking a direction to the respondent police to register a case on the complaint of the petitioners dated 28.03.2012, they have come up with this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The petitioners made three different complaints on 28.03.2012 separately to the first respondent. The crux of the complaints is one and the same. According to the petitioners, they were working as Teachers in a private school known as St.John s Senior Secondary School and Junior College (CBSE) for some years. At the time when they joined the School as Teachers, the second respondent Management insisted for the production of their original testimonials such as SSLC, +2 Certificate, Degree etc. The same were accordingly submitted by the petitioners ...
K.N.Unnikrishnan. Vs. M.Sivakumar
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.69 of 2007, dated 26.09.2007 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode in C.C.No.327 of 2002, dated 05.03.2007.ORDER1. The revision petitioner herein / accused has preferred this Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.1602 of 2007 against the judgment made in C.A.No.69 of 2007, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Erode confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.327 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 accused is the proprietor of the firm being run in the name and style of "Action Suit". The accused, in order to repay the loan advanced by one Govarthanam of "Govarthanam Textiles" had issued a cheque drawn on State Bank of Trvancore, Ernakulam Br...
P.Shanthi Rani. Vs. the Director of Elementary Education Collage and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Middle School Head Master by including the petitioner name in the panel for the year 1/1/2011 in the appropriate place and to grant all service and monetary benefits.ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Backward Class & Minorities Welfare School, Appanur. On 13/6/2000, she was promoted as Head Master and posted in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Kamarajapuram, Mudukulathur Union, Ramanathapuram District.2. Whileso, he was issued with a charge memo dated 7/7/2010 under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Another charge memo dated 29/9/2010 was issued on the same lines making the same allegations. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 20/10/2010 denying the charges. However, the second respondent passed an order dated 15/2/2011...
G.Murugendran. Vs. V.Sathiamoorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Application No.2624 of 2011 is preferred under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court O.S. Rules read with Sections 82, 86 and 110 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and read with Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to substitute the applicant in place of the original petitioner.ORDER1. This is an application filed by the applicant, who is the 13th respondent in the main Election Petition, seeking to substitute his name in the place of the original election petitioner.2. When the matter came up on 10.6.2011, this court directed the second respondent to file a counter. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 28.6.2011 was filed. No counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent. The first respondent filed the election petition to set aside the election made in favour of the second respondent who was elected to the Lok Sabha from Ramanathapuram Constituency. The Election Petition was filed on several grounds of corrupt practice. The said election petition was numbered as E.P.No.1 ...
Rasu. Vs. R.S.Rajhakumaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
PRAYER Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to allow the appeal and modify the award passed in MCOP No.910 of 2010 dated 28.01.2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli.JUDGMENT1. Mother, in her old age, whether should be considered as an asset or liability to the family is the issue raised in this appeal. Whether those who are in the morning of the life and in the evening of the life alone can be construed to be the dependants and or those are in the middle i.e. grown up children also can be considered so, is yet another issue to be decided.2. The major children of the deceased has filed this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. In respect of death of the mother, in the accident that took place on 28.01.2010, the claimants filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation.3. The deceased, stated to be 45 years old at the time of accident was a fruit vendor, earning a sum of Rs.250/- per day. According...
P.K.Pethanaswamy. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent passed in Government Letter No.21724/FR.I/2004-70 Environment and Forest Department dated 14.09.2005 and in G.O.Ms.No.715 Forest and Fisheries department dated 01.07.1987 quash the Government order dated 1.7.87 in so far as it relates to the non-selection of the petitioner as Deputy Conservator of Forests and to quash the order dated 14.09.2005 and to issue consequential directions to the 1st respondent (1) to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the panel of Assistant Conservator of Forests fit for promotion as Deputy Conservator of Forests, approved in the Government Order dated 01.07.198; (2) to regularize the service of the petitioner in the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests from 20.06.1986 and (3) to refix the pay of the petitioner in the post of Deputy Conservator of Fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- Next ›
- Last »