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.
V.D.S.R.Re.Rolling Mill. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.798 of 1992 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide ka.No.G.24205/91 dated 19.06.1992 passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Madras-600 005, the respondent herein. Prayer in W.P.No.799 of 1992 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Declaration, and to call for the records relating to the impugned G.O.2555 of the Revenue Department, dated 14.056.1973 and declare that the impugned G.O. Namely G.O.Ms.No.2555 dated 14.05.1973 of the Revenue Department as illegal and null and void.C O M M O N O R D E R1. In W.P.No.798 of 1993, VDSR Re-rolling Mill, represented by its Partner, Rajendra Kumar, Thiruvanamalai District, has sought for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records, relating to the impugned order, vide Ka.No.G1 24205/91, dated 19.0...
Raja Poongolu Chetty Charities and ors. Vs. Meer Alias Meera Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.03.2004 passed in A.S.No.458 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2002 passed in O.S.No.8485 of 1997 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.JUDGMENT1. The unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost his suit before both the trial Court and the first appellate Court, has preferred the second appeal.2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this second appeal, are as follows:(i)The suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for (a)declaration that the plaintiff trust is the absolute owner of the suit property (b)directing the defendants 1 to 4 to deliver vacant possession of the suit property (c)directing the defendants 1 to 3 to render true and proper accounts of the collections made by them from the defendants 5 to 11 (d)directing the fourth defendant to deliver all the title deeds rela...
J. Periannan. Vs. the Commissioner, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Head Master and post the petitioner in any of the vacancies as per the list prepared by the Respondents.ORDER1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Head Master and post the petitioner in any of the vacancies as per the list prepared by the Respondents.2. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation dated 23.2.2010 to the respondents 1 to 3 and seeks direction to consider the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner now pleads that the same may be considered on merits.3. Considering the prayer sought for in the writ petition, without going into the merits of the claim, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.2.2010 and pass orders on merits and in ac...
The Doveton-corrie Protestant. Vs. Dr.Prof.Geoffery K.Francis
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer in Crl.A.Nos.840 & 841 of 2004 :Appeal filed under section 378 Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal dated 14.06.2004 passed in C.C.Nos.9370 of 2001 & 7469 of 2002 by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrates' Court, Egmore, Chennai.Prayer in Crl.RC Nos.153 & 154 of 2007 : Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 12.09.2006 made in C.A.Nos.283 & 284 of 2004.COMMON JUDGMENT1. The following are the allegations contained in the complaint laid by the complainant, namely School Association (in C.C.No.7469 of 2002)1 [A] The complainant is an Association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and governing body running, managing and administrating the schools and properties of the trust of Doveton Institution at Ritherdon Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007 and that these schools and institutions are one of the premier, renown, reputed and respected schools and institutions o...
Mohamed Fazal. Vs. K.S.Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Writ Appeal preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.9.2011 made in W.P.No.7440 of 2011.JUDGMENTELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.1. One B.Gowdappa, Proprietor of M/s.Sree Anand Mansion (Boarding & Lodging), Hosur, comprised in S.No.968/1A2, Sennathur Village, Krishnagiri Road, Hosur-635109, availed a loan of Rs.16.95 lakh out of the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.19.20 lakh for construction of a hotel at Sennathur village, Krishnagiri Road, by mortgaging the said property, measuring an extent of 2623 sq.ft. along with superstructure put up therein from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC in short). Since he fell in default, TIIC foreclosed the loan account and took constructive possession of the property during 2002 and subsequently, brought the assets in public auction eight times between 2002 and 2011. 2. When the property was brought for auction sale for the seventh time on 30.12.2010, one sealed tende...
Dharmapuri Handlooms Weavers Co-operative Production. Vs. S.Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 29.07.2005 in A.S.No.45 of 2004 on the file of Sub-Court, Dharmapuri reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.22 of 2000 dated 07.03.2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Dharmapuri. For Appellant : Mr.S.KalyanaramanJ U D G M E N T1. The appellant herein is Dharmapuri Handlooms Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Limited, represented by its Special Officer, the plaintiff who filed the suit-O.S.No.22/2000 against S.Lakshmi-defendant/respondent herein/tenant, seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property. Though the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court, the learned first appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the reversed findings of the learned first appellate Court, this Second Appeal has been brought by the plaintiff Co-operative Society.2. The plaintiff Cooperative Society being an absolute owne...
K.Geethalakshmi. Vs. the Registrar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Prayer in all Writ Petitions:Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration declaring the regulation of the 1st and 2nd respondents made along with the application in respect of candidates who have not passed but crossed double the duration of course of study in medical, dental, ayush and allied health science courses as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear and continue the entire course as per clause 5 of the prospectus of the year 2001.COMMON ORDER1. The petitioners are all students of the 3rd respondent Sri Balaji Dental College and Hospital. In this Writ Petition, they have sought for declaration of the regulation framed by the 1st respondent University in prescribing conditions for those candidates who have not passed but crossed double the duration of course of study in medical, dental, ayush and allied health science courses as illegal and unconstitutional and consequen...
S.Sivakumar. Vs. P.Venkatachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2011 made in I.A.Nos.871 and 872 of 2011 in O.S.No.346 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Erode.O R D E R1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal orders dated 29.10.2011 made in I.A.Nos.871 and 872 of 2011 in O.S.No.346 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Erode, in and by which the trial Court dismissed the applications for reopening of plaintiff side evidence. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, some important facts were omitted to be explained during the chief-examination of P.W.1 and hence P.W.1 has to be recalled. The said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, stating that already plaintiff's side witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the respondent and by filing the applications, the petitioner wants to fill up ...
The Executive Officer. Vs. Prabhakaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decreetal and fair order made in I.A.No.1042 of 2011 in O.S. No.138 of 2008 duly passed by the District Munsif, Palladam dated 21.09.2011 in dismissing the application duly taken out under Order 18 Rule 3A and Section 151 CPC to condone the delay in examination of the petitioner and for recording of evidence.O R D E R1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the decreetal and fair order dated 21.09.2011 made in I.A.No.1042 of 2011 in O.S. No.138 of 2008 passed by the District Munsif, Palladam in dismissing the application duly taken out under Order XVIII Rule 3A and Section 151 CPC to condone the delay in examination of the petitioner and for recording of evidence.2. The petitioner is the 3rd defendant and respondents 1 and 2 are defendants 1 and 2 before the Trial Court. The 3rd respondent herein is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.138 of 2008 for permanent injunction. During the co...
Arumugam Venkatachalam Vs. Standard Chartered Bank
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
(The appeal having come before us for final hearing on 27.06.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant having bank transactions with the opposite party, applied for enhancement of loan to the extent of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) under the home saver scheme for which he has paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- as processing fee and the opposite party had sanctioned the loan on 27.06.2008 on condition to produce PTQ certificate regarding the loans to be paid towards HDFC Bank, CITI Bank, Cholamandalam Financial Institutions and after adjusting other loan from the sanctioned loan balance amount to be credited to the complainants account thereby the complainant obtained PTQ certificate from the HDFC Bank on 30.06.2008 and the loan amount was to be settle...