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.
K.Perumal. Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order of cancellation of minimum pension vide 2nd respondent proceeding PenI/I/VAO/A751981/GA dated 4.2.2002 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to award the minimum pension to the petitioner as already awarded from the date of superannuation of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 04.02.2002, vide which the regular pension, granted to petitioner, was ordered to be stopped.2. The impugned order reads as under:"OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ACCOUNTS & ENTITLEMENTS), TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI-600 018PenI/I/VAO/A751981/GA/2909 Dt.4.2.2002ToThe TahsildarSalemSir, Sub: Pension-VAO-Shri. K.Perumal DOR 30.6.92 PPOM No.A 751981/GA Ref: Your letter No.ROC.14950/94/A2 dt 10...
K.Nagarajan. Vs. V.Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and final order dated 01.10.2009 made in RCA No.2 of 2008 on the file of the Appellate Authority I Additional Sub Judge, Erode, confirming the fair and final order dated 29.08.2008 made in RCOP No.8 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller I Additional District Munsif, Erode.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 01.10.2009 passed in RCA No.2 of 2008 by the Appellate Authority-I Additional Sub Judge, Erode, confirming the fair and final order dated 29.08.2008 passed in RCOP No.8 of 2003 by the Rent Controller I Additional District Munsif, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The original landlord deceased Vaiyapuri Mudaliar, during his life time filed RCOP No.8 of 2003 as against the respondent/tenant- Nagarajan, invoking Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the ground of willful default in payin...
A. Baskaran. Vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgement and conviction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Nagercoil in Special Case No.7 of 2003, dated 23.10.2007 and acquit the appellant herein.JUDGEMENT1. The sole accused in Special Case No.7 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nagercoil is the appellant in this appeal and he has preferred this Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the judgement of the trial court dated 23.10.2007. For the sake of convenience, the appellant will be referred to as accused.2. The learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nagercoil framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against the accused and after trial, found him guilty...
S.Lawrence Visuvasam. Vs. Ms.Rasathi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
This petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act to punish the respondent for committing contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.11577 of 2006, dated 10.2.2011.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, had placed before this Court the proceedings, dated 26.6.2012, issued by the respondent, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 10.2.2011, made in W.P.No.11577 of 2006.3. In such circumstances, since, no further orders are necessary, the contempt petition stands closed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the respondent, dated 26.6.2012, if so advised, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to l...
Ms.Sri Krishna Constructions. Vs. Ms.Tiffin's Barytes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 11 of O.S. Rules, r/w. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2012 made in C.A.No.1911 of 2010 in C.P.No.326 of 2010.J U D G M E N T[Judgment of the Court was made by P.JYOTHIMANI, J.]1. Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondent.2. The original Company Petition has been filed by the appellant against the respondent Company for winding up on the ground of inability to pay its debts, under Section 433[e] r/w. Section 494[1][a] and 439[1][b] of the Companies Act, 1956. Pending the said Company Petition, the appellant filed Company Application No.1911 of 2010, seeking an order of injunction in respect of 'a' to 'e' schedule of immovable properties, from creating any third party interest and also not to make any sale of the movable properties, including minerals lying at the stockyard of the mines of t...
S.Chidambara Kuthalam Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. to set aside the Judgement passed in S.C.No.207 of 2005 dated 28.10.2005 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and allow the Criminal Revision.ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgement of acquittal of the respondents 2 and 3 herein who were prosecuted for an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC in Session Case No.207 of 2005 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. They were prosecuted on the allegation that they caused the death of Shanmugam @ Sakthi, the brother of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner happened to be the de-facto complainant and he figured as PW1 before the trial court. The trial court held the respondents 2 & 3 herein/ accused not guilty on the basis of its finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The said judgement pronounced on 28...
Dr.K.Vaiyapuri. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for writs of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in the proceedings No.A2/0949/2009 dated 24.9.2011 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable and further direct the respondents 2 to 6 herein to place the incumbent associate professors in the higher pay band of Rs.37,400/- - 67,000/-, with AGP of Rs.9,000/- in accordance with clause vii of para 1 of Annexure I of the G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 1.3.2010.C O M M O N O R D E R1. Since, the issue involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 24.9.2011, issued by the Registrar, Ta...
G.Anandan. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Prayer W.P.No.93 of 2008: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the proceedings issued in C.No.06/AP/Tr.PR/N/07, dated 12.11.2007 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages for the period the petitioner was out of employment.Prayer in W.P.No.27942 of 2004: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings A2/Q/12895/2004/Ma.A.No.379/2004 dated 19.5.2004 quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to allow the petitioner to join duty forthwith and to extend all service and other monetary benefits.Prayer in W.P.No.21740 of 2008: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the proceedings issued in Rc...
George. Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner dated 08.02.2007 made in S.C.No.62 of 2006, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam and the same was confirmed by Sessions Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in his judgment made in C.A.No.2 of 2007, dated 23.04.2007.ORDER1. The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-The P.W.1, viz., Vaijayanthi is the wife of P.W.4., Jerald. Their daughter is P.W.3, the prosecutrix. P.W.3 was aged about 9 years and studying in IV standard. P.W.5., Pushparani is the wife of one Alphonse, who died on 05.01.2005. Alphonse is the brother of P.W.4, Jerald. Their sister is P.W.7., Shanthi. Her daughter is P.W.6, Preethi. P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.5, Pushparani. On the night of 12.02.2005, they assembled in the house of P.W.5, Pushparani to observe Alphonse's 40th day death ceremony. P.W.2, P.W.3 and the other children were taken to the ...
S.Chidambara Kuthalam. Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. to set aside the Judgement passed in S.C.No.207 of 2005 dated 28.10.2005 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and allow the Criminal Revision.ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgement of acquittal of the respondents 2 and 3 herein who were prosecuted for an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC in Session Case No.207 of 2005 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. They were prosecuted on the allegation that they caused the death of Shanmugam @ Sakthi, the brother of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner happened to be the de-facto complainant and he figured as PW1 before the trial court. The trial court held the respondents 2 & 3 herein/ accused not guilty on the basis of its finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The said judgement pronounced on 28...
- ‹ Prev
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 70
- 71
- Next ›
- Last »