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.
R.Devaraj. Vs. the Commissioner, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from acquiring the land in Door No.7/2, Mahalakshmi Nagar, 3rd Street, Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore in an unlawful manner.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from acquiring the land in Door No.7/2, Mahalakshmi Nagar, 3rd Street, Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore in an unlawful manner.2. Mr.K.Makesh, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents should not acquire the petitioner's land without following the due process of law. A representation dated 26.6.2012 has been sent and a photo copy of the postal acknowledgment dated 28.6.2012 signed by the second respondent is filed along with the typedset of papers.4. The counsel appearing for the respondents states that the a...
T.Usharani. Vs. the Director Medical and Rural Health Services.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4321/ne1/3/2010, dated 13.10.2010 passed by the 4th respondent followed by the Letter No.9866/ESI/ne1(2)/10 dated 13.9.2010 and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate petitioner as a Pharmacists under the 3rd respondent.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been transferred from the E.S.I. dispensary, Kelambakkam, Kancheepuram District, to the Royapettah Government Hospital, as a pharmacist, by way of the impugned order, dated 13.10.2010, passed without obtaining her consent for such transfer, by the fourth respondent.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted th...
P.Srineevas. Vs. AkilA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
These two civil revision petitions are preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 as against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2010 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCA No.72 of 2007 in modifying the order and decree dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP No.1206 of 2005.COMMON ORDER1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2010 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCA No.72 of 2007 in modifying the order and decree dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP No.1206 of 2005, these two civil revision petitions have been focussed by the landlord as well as the tenant.2. Heard both sides.3. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions would run thus:a) The landlord, vi...
G.Palani. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to process the licence application dated nil given by the petitioner for running the timber or sawmills situated at 76, New Muthappar Street Block, Tirupathur Taluk, Vellore District in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules 2010 and grant licence without returning the same.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to process the licence application dated nil given by the petitioner for running the timber or sawmills situated at 76, New Muthappar Street Block, Tirupathur Taluk, Vellore District in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules 2010 and grant licence without returning the same.2. None appears for the petitioner. However, Mr.K.Muralidharan, learned Government Advocate (Forest) appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 stat...
K.Lakshmiammal. Vs. D.S.Nagalakshmi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed against the fair order and decreetal order dated 26.11.2009 made in M.P.No.2041 of 2008 in E.P.No.271 of 2007 on the file of the Registrar Court, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order made in M.P.No. 2041 of 2008 in E.P.No.271 of 2007 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The petitioner filed the said miscellaneous petition under Order 21 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code for staying all further proceedings in the above said execution petition. In support of the said miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has filed an affidavit before the Court below stating that the respondent filed the ejectment suit against the petitioner and got an exparte decree on 26.3.2007 by covering up the earlier round of litigation, which ended in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed an application to set aside the exparte decree dated 26.3.2007. The Court below rejected...
K.Loganathan. Vs. P.Karuppanna Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Prayer:Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.1999 in A.S.No.198 of 1998 on the file of the Learned II Additional District Judge, Erode reversing the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.203 of 1994 dated 09.07.1998 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.JUDGMENT1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred this present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.1999 in A.S.No.198 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Erode in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.07.1998 in O.S.No.203 of 1994 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.2. The Germane Kernel Plaint Facts filed by the Appellant/ Plaintiff are set out below:(i)The suit property and a northern portion of it was purchased by the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant and one Karuppanna Gounder, son of Periyanna Gounder, jointly on 24.08.1961. The property purchased under the said Sale Deed was the separate...
D.RajA. Vs. the Chief General Manager and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1st respondent relating to the order dated 17.3.2011 bearing reference No. Nil rejecting Appeal dated 16.4.2010 and 24.1.2011 read with the discharge order dated 30.3.2010 bearing reference No. HR.RC. 4790 letter of the 3rd respondent dated 26.7.2010 bearing reference No. RB/AC/SB/87 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary violative of principles of Natural Justice contrary to OMR Rules without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner back in service as Officer Marketing and Recovery (Rural) as per the appointment order dated 10.3.2008 read with State Bank of India Officers marketing and Recovery (Rural) Service and Conduct Rules with backwages, continuity of service, annual increments, promotion to the higher grade and all other attendant benefits which the petitioner would have en...
SarojA. Vs. Selvanayagi Alias Baby and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to call for the records I.A.No.1399 of 1998 in O.S.No.90 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupur and set aside the order dated 18.02.2005.ORDER1. The Petitioner/2nd Defendant has projected the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 18.02.2005 in I.A.No.1399 of 1998 in O.S.No.98 of 1989 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tirupur.2. The Learned District Munsif, Tirupur, while passing the order in I.A.No.1399 of 1998 on 18.02.2005, has, among other things, observed that 'the Petitioner/2nd Defendant has not approached the Court with clean hands and that already I.A.No.986 of 1990 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been dismissed and as such, the present application is not maintainable and consequently, dismissed the same with costs.'3. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner/2nd Defendant has projected I.A.No.1399 of 1998 before the trial Court inter ...
Ms.R.S.Timber and Saw Mill. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Both Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to issue Form III permit to the petitioner at the Tamil Nadu Forest Department Check Post of Tamil Nadu-Karnataka Border, when the petitioner's consignment of silver oak timber logs with valid documents except Transport permit is transported from the State of Karnataka into the State of Tamil Nadu by the petitioner.COMMON ORDER1. Both the Writ Petitions are filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to issue Form III permit to the petitioner at the Tamil Nadu Forest Department Check Post of Tamil Nadu-Karnataka Border, when the petitioner's consignment of silver oak timber logs with valid documents except Transport permit is transported from the State of Karnataka into the State of Tamil Nadu by the petitioner.2. Mr.M.K.Subramanian, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. The relief sought for i...
Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries. Vs. Ms.Bala Murugan Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent herein in his Consent Orders No.5413 and 5473 of even dated 16.12.2010 and quash the same as illegal.ORDER1. The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition by way of Public Interest Litigation challenging the Letters of Consent, dated 16.12.2010, given by the third respondent to the first respondent to establish the Titanium Di- Oxide Manufacturing Unit along with 2 MW Biomass based cogeneration Power Plant.2. According to the petitioner, their main attack is that in order to safeguard the mining leases holding by the members of the petitioner federation and the mining lease applied areas of the members of the petitioner federation, they have filed this Public Interest Litigation. According to the petitioner, the second and third respondents should consider and appraise the raw material resources and water resources of the unit which...