Chennai Court August 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.
P. Sivakami Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2, in A.Me.Ku.Manthanam No.35/2012, dated 27.04.2012, quashing the same and consequently setting the detenu P.Saravanakumar @ Saravanaperumal @ Vellaiyan @ Saravanan, 24/12) now confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, at liberty.) (M.M.SUNDRESH, J) 1. The Petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, who has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), has come forward to file this Writ Petition to quash the detention order, dated 27.04.2012, issued by Respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the detention order is liable to be quashed, as there is an une...
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector and Another Vs. T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code as against the judgment and decree, dated 27.11.2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai, in reversing the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.38 of 2003, dated 13.06.2003, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.) The plaintiff / respondent, who allegedly lost 3 years of his service for no fault of him, who wanted confirmation / restoration of his original date of birth as given by him at the time of entering into service, is facing the second appeal, which is filed by the appellants raising the following substantial question of law:- "(i) Whether the claim of the plaintiff for change of date of birth is barred by Rules 49 and 49-A of Tamil Nadu Service Manual? (ii) Whether the lower appellate court is right in placing the burden of proof regarding the alleged fabrication with regard to the date of birth of the plaintiff in the service register under Ex.A-4?" 2. Th...
The Sathyanarayana Charitable Trust Rep. by Its Managing Trustee K.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.9.2011 made in Application No.3645 of 2011 in O.P.No.314 of 2004.) P.JYOTHIMANI,J. 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in the Original Petition against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in the application filed by third parties, who are the grandchildren of the author of the trust, in impleading them as parties to the Original Petition. 2. The appellant has filed the Original Petition under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 before this Court seeking sanction for sale of a house and ground at No.58 (Old No.50), Poes Garden, Chennai - 600 086, and to direct deposit of the sale proceeds in approved government securities fetching income. 3.1. A thumbnail sketch of the facts essential for disposal of the instant appeal is as under: Ch.Sathyanarayana by a deed of declaration of trust dated 5.6.1968 has created a public charitable trust for the relief of the poor, a...
G. Ganesan Vs. P.V. Rajapandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Prayer in S.A.No.819 of 2012: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu, dated 29.6.2011 in A.S.No.33 of 2010 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif of Chengalpattu dated 30.07.2010 in O.S.No.174 of 2007. Prayer in S.A.No.820 of 2012: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu, dated 29.6.2011 in A.S.No.34 o f 2010 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif of Chengalpattu dated 30.07.2010 in O.S.No.345 of 2006.) JUDGMENT 1. G.Ganesan is the tenant and P.V.Rajapandi is the landlord. The tenant filed a suit in O.S.No.345 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu for a bare injunction contending that the landlord was trying to forcibly evict him without adopting due process of law. Besides resisting the said suit, the l...
M/S. Ashok Granites Ltd. Rep. by Its Director D. Krishnan Vs. the Assi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in CST No.425424/2008-09 dated 27.7.2012 quash the same as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned notice, dated 27.07.2012, had been issued, by the respondent, without the assessment order, in C.S.T.No.425424/2008-09, dated 15.11.2011, having been served on the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted, on instructions, that the assessment order, in C.S.T.No.425424/2008-09, had not been served on the petitioner, till date. 4. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf...
Union Bank of India, Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. S. Liakat Ali and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code as against the decree and judgment, dated 27.08.1999 in A.S.No.8 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the decree and judgment, dated 24.12.1997 in O.S.No.123 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvallur.) The appellant-Bank, which is not able to get a decree as against all the three defendants together but only as against the third defendant, has filed this appeal. 2. The following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration:- “1. Whether the framing of issues with reference to passing of consideration in respect of the promissory note, despite presumption available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is proper? 2. Whether fixing the liability as against the third defendant, exonerating the first and second defendants, is proper when the appellant has allegedly made payment to the third defendant on behalf of first defendant who is...
Tamizhaga Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam, Rep. by Its General Secretary ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the firstrespondent to the order dated 03.12.2004 passed by the first respondent in I.A.No.80 of 2004 in I.D.No.116 of 1999 and quash the same consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the I.D on merits.) ORDER The petitioner union has raised a dispute against the punishment of suspension imposed by the management of Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd., against three workmen and the issue has been referred for adjudication by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.884, dated 05.10.1999 and it has been taken on file, by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thiruchirapalli as I.D.No.116 of 1999. The workmen have been represented by a counsel. On 20.02.2004 the matter has been dismissed for default, for non appearance. According to the petitioner, the Advocate Clerk has wrongly noted down the date, as 27.02.2004 instead of 20.02....
E. Maria Joseph Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mad ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records leading to the order issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.2877/2012SaPA, dated 29.06.2012, quash the same and direct the respondent to take on file the revision petition, dated 21.02.2011.) ORDER 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order, dated 29.06.2012, passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dismissing the revision petition filed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed at Madurai Southern Railway Staff Co-operative Stores Ltd., Madurai, as a watchman/Weighter on 01.07.1998. The petitioner was appointed on daily wage of Rs.100/- per day. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed in the consolidated wages of Rs.750/- per month. The service of the petitioner was confirmed under the statutory sett...
parties : R. Mahalakshmi and Others P. Poomalai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2003 in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the claimants who are dissatisfied with the award passed by the Mottor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 1999 dated 11.08.2003. 2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,16,000/- as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased also Ravi, who died in the accident occurred on 13.10.1998. 3. As regards negligence aspect, the Tribunal considering the evidence on record, has held that there was negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The finding recorded by the Tribun...
P. Sekar Vs. Director General of Police and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in P.R.No.52/P.R. (N.1)/07, dated 28.12.2007 and confirmed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings Rc.No.45647/AP.3(3)/2011, dated 16.11.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits within a time-frame as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court or issue any other appropriate order.) 1. The petitioner was serving as Head Constable. Disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. I am not going into the details of the charges, in view of the order, that is to be passed hereunder: 2. The charge memo dated 12.5.2007, resulted i...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »