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.Thirupathi. Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in letter No.5492/XI/2010-1, dated 02.03.2010 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to direct the 4th and 5th respondents to provide adequate police protection to the construction of statue at the South East corner compound of the 6th respondent school.ORDER1. The petitioner is the President of Thanthai Periyar Statue Installation Committee at Kaveripattinam. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the second respondent Joint Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Chennai, dated 2.3.2010 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to 4th and 5th respondents, i.e., Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri and the Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station to provide adequate p...
Eshwar Purushothaman Gardens, Rep. by Its Partner Vs. Authorised Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the recordsof the Respondent's possession notice dated 16.8.2011 and to quash the same so far the Petitioner concern.)K.K. Sasidharan,J.1. This Writ Petition at the instance of the borrower, challenges the Recovery proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions ofSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as"SARFAESI Act") principally on the ground that the secured asset is an agricultural land and as such, the Bank notlegally correctto invoke the provisions of SARFAESI Act.The facts:2. The Petitioner is a registered firm engaged in agricultural operations. The Petitioner made an Application before the IndianBank, Coimbatore requesting grant of term loan for agricultural operations. The Petitioner offered their agricultural property ascollateral security. The Bank sanctioned the...
The Branch Manager, Lic of India, Panruti and Another Vs. V. Selvaraj
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
(The appeal having come before us for final hearing on 25.06.2012, 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 opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant filed a complaint claiming relief of the policy benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest against insured fathers claim Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings and for costs. 3. The District Forum on the basis of materials from both sides after an enquiry allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the policy amount with 12% interest and Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellants have come forward with this appeal and contended that the complainants father as insured person by giving false date of birth, age and subsequently ...
The Principal, Ultra College of Pharmacy and Another Vs. R. Nagamani S ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
(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 petitioners/opposite parties filed this Revision Petition against the impugned order passed by the District Forum in CMP No.170/2010 dated in C.C.No.343/2007 dismissing the petitioners prayer and for dismissing the complaint. 2. The petitioners contended that on 21.09.2006, the complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant in which a delay condonation petition under section 24-A (2), to condone the delay for 1450 days was filed in CMP 350/2006 and the delay was condoned when the complaint was originally filed such delay was occurred but subsequently after representing the complaint by rectifying the defects pointed out by the District Forum on 21.12.2006, further delay of 90 days was not included for condonat...
B.StalIn Vs. the Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the second and third respondents not to pass, number or list writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions even if the respondents are from Delhi or Chennai falling within the Madurai Bench territorial jurisdiction / part of falling within Madurai jurisdiction / cause of action and when the petitioner's address is within the Madurai Bench jurisdiction irrespective of the respondents' addresses, at the Principal Seat, Chennai and to further transfer all pending writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions filed at the Principal Seat on or after 24.07.2004 falling within the Madurai jurisdiction.ORDERK.CHANDRU, J.1. This Special Bench was constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 14.10.2011 to hear the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5709 of 2011. The Bench came to be constituted on a reference being made by the ...
K. Thiruvanam Pillai. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Writ Petition filed under under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Order in G.O.Ms.No.60 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department dated 24.4.2007 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned and further direct the respondents to count the temporary service of the petitioner from 1.1.81 to 16.7.97 along with regular service for the purpose of pension and other terminal benefits and pay all terminal benefits and pension from 1.11.1998 with interest.ORDER1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Order G.O.Ms.No.60 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department dated 24.4.2007, vide which the request of the petitioner for counting the temporary service for the purpose of pension has been rejected.2. The petitioner was appointed as casual labour in the respondent Depar...
U.Shanmugham Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Central Prison
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Common Prayer: Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned orders of the 1st respondent made in No.3582/Moo.Yoo/2000 dt 18.12.2000, confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent made in No.13919/Po.3/99 dtd.12.7.2000 and made in No.5792/Po.3/2000 dtd.1.8.2000 and consequential reinstatement of the petitioner with all back wages since 26.11.1987 till date.O R D E R1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order No.3582/Moo.Yoo/2000 dated 18.12.2000, dismissing the petitioner from service as also the Order Nos.13919/Po.3/99 dtd.12.7.2000 and 5792/Po.3/2000 dated 01.08.2000, confirming the order of his dismissal in appeal.2. The petitioner was appointed as Male Nursing Assistant in the Jail Department in July 1981. The petitioner was sus...
A.M.Mohan. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to take possession of the properties comprised in Chennai, Adyar, Urur T.S. No.11, Block No.21 (Old Survey No.63) measuring Acre 2.27 and in T.S.No.9/1, Block No.21 (Old Survey No.63) measuring Acre 1.40 by conducting enquiry on the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 02.07.2010 in accordance with law.O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by Justice Elipe Dharma Rao)1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 herein to take possession of the properties comprised in Chennai, Adyar, Urur T.S. No.11, Block No.21 (Old Survey No.63) measuring Acre 2.27 and in T.S.No.9/1, Block No.21 (Old Survey No.63) measuring Acre 1.40, by conducting enquiry on the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 02.07.2010 in accordance with law.2. The brief facts, that are necessary ...
M.C.Gunsekaran. Vs. the Commissioner, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's application dated 04.01.2012 for providing permission of plan to construct the building situated at door No.9/5, Mani Street, Vijayalakshmipuram, Oragadam, Chennai 600053 comprised in Survey No.172/2A1A1A1A1A1 and directing the respondents to allow construction work as per the plan submitted by the petitioner's premises.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's application dated 04.01.2012 for providing planning permission to construct the building situated at door No.9/5, Mani Street, Vijayalakshmipuram, Oragadam, Chennai 600053 comprised in Survey No.172/2A1A1A1A1A1 and directing the respondents to allow construction work as per the plan submitted by the petitioner's premises.2. Mr.Selva Sekaran, learned counsel takes no...
Ms. Infovision Private Limited. Vs. the Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in M.C.No.Na.Ka.4761 of 2009, dated 01.04.2010 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, the second respondent herein, and set-aside the final order dated 01.04.2010 in the said proceedings.ORDER1. The history of the case are as follows:-The revision petitioner herein / C-party viz., M/s. Infovision Private Limited, has filed the above revision against the order passed in M.C.No.Na.Ka.4761 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, dated 01.04.2010. The Inspector of Police / complainant, who is attached to the S-1, St.Thomas Mount Police Station had registered a criminal case in Crime No.1128 of 2009, dated 24.10.2009, stating that the 'A' party viz., Mr.Thirumaniselvam, S/o. Kuppusamy Naddar, on 16.10.2009 at about 10 a.m., had preferred to raise a wall in the property in Survey No.16/7, an e...
- ‹ Prev
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- Next ›
- Last »