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.
E.Ranganayagi Vs. the District Collector 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 forbearing the respondents from evicting or demolishing or dispossessing the petitioner house comprised in Survey No. 167, situate at Plot No. 240, Kilampakkam, Urapakkam, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.(Prayer amended as per order dated 12.05.2010 in M.P.No.3 of 2010)O R D E R1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting or demolishing or dispossessing the petitioner house comprised in Survey No. 167, situate at Plot No. 240, Kilampakkam, Urapakkam, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land has been assigned to him by the Deputy Tahsildhar, Chengalpattu by his proceedings dated 15.3.1993 and from date onwards, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the respondents are trying to take possession of the said land for the purpose of laying road without notice t...
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Ms.Tvs Mtor Company Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
These Appeals are preferred against the order of this Court dated 21.09.2011 made in A.Nos.2258 and 2691 of 2012 in C.S.No.979 of 2007.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI ,J)1. In respect of issues involved in these appeals, at the out set, it is relevant to state that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the order dated 16.09.2009 has directed the learned single Judge to dispose of the suits on or before 30.11.2009. Ironically the suit is still at the stage of taking up the matter for trial.2. The present appeals are filed against the order passed in the application filed by the plaintiff in C.S.No.979 of 2009 under Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC and also for the joint trial of both the suits in C.S.Nos. 979 of 2007 and 1111 of 2007.3. C.S.No.979 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff viz., TVS Motor Company Limited praying for a declaration that the threats held out by the defendant viz., M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited on September 1 and 3 of 2007 that the plaintiff is infringing ...
A.Ramalingam. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
W.P.No.1780/2012W.P.No.1780 of 2012 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to order for investigation by the 6th respondent into the complaint of the fees collected by the 5th respondent based on the petitioner's complaint dated 21.12.2011.W.P.No.8619 of 2012 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent on the basis of the report submitted by the District Education Officer, Chennai South dated 25.02.2010.O R D E R1. These writ petitions came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 22.06.2012.2. Heard both sides.3. Both the writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner, who is working as Post Graduate Teacher in the school in which the contesting 5th respondent is the Head Master. The said school viz., ...
Mrs.M.Thirumugalakshmi. Vs. the District Forest Officer
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 Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the second respondent in Letter No.Na.Ka.15/2012 dated 08.05.2012 and consequently forbear the respondent in any way insisting for licence from the respondent Forest Department for providing Electricity connections in No.591-001-195, Service No.195 and other amenities for running the petitioner's Saw Mill until the disposal of the petitioner application dated 28.05.2012 for grant of licence is made under the provisions of Tamilnadu Regulations Wood Based Industries Rules, 2012 and relevant rules.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the second respondent in Letter No.Na.Ka.15/2012 dated 08.05.2012 and consequently forbear the respondent in any way insisting for licence from the respondent Forest Department for providing Electricity connections in No.591-001-195, Service No...
Sri Krishna Charitable Trust. Vs. the Secretary to the Government and ...
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 2nd and 4th respondent to follow the procedures contemplated under tamilnadu Highways Act 2001 under section 15(2) (Tamilnadu Act 34 of 2002) before initiating the proceedings of Land Acquisition with respect to the petitioner premises admeasuring about 0.09 cent in Survey No. 167 in No.3 Kilambakkam Village, Urapakkam Panchayat, Chengelput taluk, Kancheepuram district.O R D E R1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 4th respondent to follow the procedures contemplated under tamilnadu Highways Act 2001 under section 15(2) (Tamilnadu Act 34 of 2002) before initiating the proceedings of Land Acquisition with respect to the petitioner premises admeasuring about 0.09 cent in Survey No. 167 in No.3 Kilambakkam Village, Urapakkam Panchayat, Chengelput taluk, Kancheepuram district.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the said land...
K.S.Sundaram. Vs. S.Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
This Appeal is preferred against the order of this Court dated 8.6.2010 made in C.S.No.157 of 2011.JUDGMENTM.DURAISWAMY,J,1. Challenging the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge made in C.S.No.157 of 2001 on the file of this court the plaintiff has filed the above appeal. The respondents were the defendants in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in C.S.No.157 of 2001 for claiming damages of Rs.10,00,001/- and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from repeating or publishing further libel against the plaintiff.3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-(i) According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is a publication said to be focussing on business and economics and the first defendant is the Editor of the second defendant; that in the issue for the period from 30.8.2000 to 14.9.2000, the first defendant falsely and maliciously printed and published about the plaintiff, his family and his profession. According to the plaintiff, the said article...
M.Durai. Vs. the Superintendent Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
PRAYER:This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 2554 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services to any one of the suitable posts forthwith as per Government order and to extend all consequential benefits arising thereto.O R D E R1. The petitioner was appointed as casual labourer on daily wages in the year 1998 and has been continuous service till date without any break except notional break of one day. The petitioner on the date of filing the Original Application before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had put in five years of continuous service.2. The petitioner moved an application for regularisation of service, on the plea that the Government was considerate enough to regularise the service of the persons like that of the petitioner immediately on completion of 5/10 years of service....
N.Murugeswari. Vs. T.Sivasankari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.1800 of 2009 in P.O.P.No.130 of 2007.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.1800 of 2009 in P.O.P.No.130 of 2007, this civil revision petition is filed.2. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:(i) The revision petitioner herein filed the suit in forma pauperis in P.O.P.No.130 of 2007 with the following prayer:"to pass a decree and judgementa) to set aside the sale deeds dt 10.8.05, registered as documents No.3478/05 to 3481/05 by way of declaratory injunction since they were obtained by threat, coercion, undue influence and in duress.b) pass a decree of mandatory injunction to hand over the cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and the cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- which were obtained by the defendants from the plaintiff by threat, coercion, undue influence an...
M.Arumugam. Vs. S.N.Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.08.2011 made in I.A.No.370 of 2009 in A.S.No.138 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 03.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.370 of 2009 in A.S.No.138 of 2005, by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts in a few broad strokes, could be encapsulated thus:The revision petitioner herein filed the suit O.S.No.1739 of 2004 seeking recovery of money.Ultimately after contest, the decree was passed, as against which appeal A.S.No.138 of 2005 was filed by the respondents/appellants/defendants herein. According to the learned counsel for the respondents/appellants/defendants, appeal notice was served through RPAD, however the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that the purported signature in the postal acknowledgm...
S.A.Hajira Bai Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the impugned order in Sae.Mu.No.1739/99 dated 16.08.2001 passed by 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal.O R D E R1. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Child Welfare Organiser on a consolidated salary of Rs.173/- per month on 29.08.1982. The Hon'ble Minister of Welfare visited the centre, where the petitioner was working and inspected the records. At the time of visit, of the Hon'ble Minister, all the children had already left, after taking their noon meal.2. The Hon'ble Minister reported against the petitioner, and the respondents, on the basis of that report, and without holding any enquiry or issuing show cause notice to petitioner, ordered her dismissal from service.3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal filed W.P.No.4976 of 1992. The writ petition was allowed on 16.09.1999 and the case was remitted back to...
- ‹ Prev
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- Next ›
- Last »