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.
Selvam. Vs. Sri Rajaganapathi Finance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
CRP No.2456 of 2012 is preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in CMA No.5 of 2012 in confirming the order and decreetal order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram in I.A.No.22 of 2012.CRP No.2457 of 2012 is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order and decreetal order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram in I.A.No.22 of 2012.COMMON ORDER1. These two civil revision petitions are focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in CMA No.5 of 2012 in confirming the order and decreetal order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram in I.A.No.22 of 2012 and as against the order and decreetal order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram in I.A.N...
A.S.P.T.Balakrishnan. Vs. the General Manager, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the third respondent's order made in proceedings Movt.opn/FCI/SLM/2011-12, dated 29.11.2011, and to quash the same.This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondents pertaining to the impugned order dated 28.11.2011 bearing No.SA/C.304/Round the clock working/Goods and the original notification dated 25.11.2011 bearing No.ARN No.11/2011 and quash the same.C O M M O N O R D E R1. Since, the issues 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 counsels appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. It has been stated that the petitioners are carrying on the bus...
K.Saravanan. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned.2. A counter affidavit, dated 12.7.2012, had been filed on behalf of the respondents. Paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit read as follows:"3. I further to submit that on verification of original certificates, the petitioners application has been registered in the Director General Highways Department, Chennai-5 and assigned his seniority number as 838 A in the waiting list. So for 455 persons have been provided jobs on compassionate ground and this respondent has been keeping the seniority list and filling up the vacancies as and when it arises. Therefore, this respondents are taking steps to provide jobs for the persons who applied for jobs on compassionate ground.4. I am further to state that the...
Meenal. Vs. S.Ravishankar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
P.DEVADASS, J.,1. Petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to her husband.2. Petitioner joined in wedlock with Ravi Shankar/accused. They had no issues, but have issues. Already, they are fighting in the Family Court, Chennai, in H.M.O.P.No.1866 of 2012, which has been filed by Ravi Shankar for their reunion.3. On 09.05.2012, in Crl.O.P.No.11043 of 2012, this court had granted him anticipatory bail. Now, the petitioner wants cancellation of it. Her main grievance is that her husband having obtained anticipatory bail is not returning her shridhana articles.4. Granting of bail, anticipatory bail, as the case may be and cancellation of them are based on different principles. Unless sufficient grounds are established, Courts will not cancel the bail orders.5. So far as cancellation of bail, anticipatory bail is concerned, there are certain settled principles. If the accused, who has been given liberty by passing the bail order, whether regular bail or anticipatory bail, i...
M.Subramaniyan. Vs. the Director General Health and Preventive Decease
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent pertaining to the impugned transfer order Na.Ka.No.122320/Pa.No.4/lru.3/11 dated 18.1.2012 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner in present working place and to permit him to perform the work.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed, as a Health Inspector, on 28.10.1986. The petitioner has been performing his duties without any blemish. The services rendered by the petitioner had been appreciated by way of the Best Health Inspector Award given to him, in respect of Nagapattinam District. While so, the first respondent had issued the impugned transfer order, vide his proceedings, dated 1...
K.Ganapathy. Vs. Ms.Sakthi Sugar Limited.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed in I.A.No.1213 of 2009 in O.S.No.207 of 2008 dated 11.02.2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Erode.ORDER1. The Petitioner/Defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 11.02.2010 in I.A.No.1213 of 2009 in O.S.No.207 of 2008 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Erode, in allowing the amendment application [filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code praying permission of the Court to amend the Plaint].2. The Learned Principal Sub Judge, Erode, while passing the order in I.A.No.1213 of 2009 on 11.02.2010, has, inter alia, held that 'the Revision Petitioner/Respondent (Defendant) has violated the contract and it is not correct to state that separate suit has to be filed because of the reason that the right to claim damages in the plaint and to seek necessary amendment the Respondent/Plaintiff has got right' and viewed in that persp...
P.PunithA. Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
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 respondent to issue a certificate taking into consideration the highest marks awarded by the first respondent and consequently to direct the issuance of a certificate to the petitioner containing the following marks : (1) Physics - 193 (50+ 143); (2) Chemistry - 199 (50 +149); (3) Biology - 195 (50 + 145); (4) Mathematics - 192; (5) Tamil - 192; and (6) English - 182.ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for the issuance of a certificate taking into consideration the highest marks awarded by the first respondent and for a consequential direction to issue the certificate to the petitioner containing the marks obtained in the original valuation before her papers were revalued.2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 18.7.2012, this court directed the learned Special government Pleader to get instructions fro...
Durai at Durairaj. Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.02.2004, made in S.C.No.171 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.J U D G M E N T1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 27.02.2004, made in S.C.No.171 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Virudhachalam, whereby A1 to A3 were convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo three months simple imprisonment. A4 was convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and he was convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment t...
O.R.A.Abubakar Gani. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
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 respondents herein to value the plot No.R-32, TNHB, Kakkalur bypass Road, Kakkalur, Thiruvallur-602 001 which was specifically allotted for construction of a Mosque at public purpose site.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to value the plot No.R-32, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Kakkalur Bypass Road, Kakkalur, Tiruvallur, which was specifically allotted for construction of a Mosque and as a public purpose site.2. When the writ petition came up on 23.07.2012, this court directed notice to be given to the Standing counsel for TNHB Mr.R.Jayaseelan. On notice from this court, the learned Standing Counsel produced a written instruction received from the Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer, K.K.Nagar Division.3. The case of the petitioner was that he is staunch Muslim. He and his brother Mu...
M.Nagarajan. Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1214 Public (L & O) E Department dated 21.10.2008 and by the second respondent in RC No.194556/ HRCell/2008 dated 8.11.2008 and quash the same and further direct the third respondent to reimburse the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- recovered from the petitioner within a reasonable time.O R D E R1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1214, Public (L & O) E Department dated 21.10.2008 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 8.11.2008 and to a further direction to the third respondent to reimburse the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- recovered from the petitioner within a reasonable time.2. The case of the petitioner is that he served as Head Constable attached to Ooty B.1 Town Central Police...