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.
Kasinathan Vs. the District Collector of TuticorIn District and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in Na.Ka.AN6/15470/97 (as referred in 4(1) Notice) and published in District Gazette of Chidambaranar/Tuticorin District dated 31.03.1997 in Survey No.479/2, measuring 0.24.5 Hectare, Pandavarmangalam village, Kovilpatti Union, Tuticorin District and quash the same.) ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed, to quash the Tuticorin District Gazette Notification dated 31.03.1997, issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, shortly, the Act, acquiring the land of the petitioner in S.No.479/2 measuring 0.24.5 Hectare, Pandavarmangalam village, Kovilpatti Union, Tuticorin District. 2. The brief facts as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows: a) The native place of the petitioner is Karisalkulam village in Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. He was ...
Palanivel Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police Thalaivasal Police Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.08.2005, made in S.C.No.187 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Salem.) 1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.08.2005, made in S.C.No.187 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Salem, whereby the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo 30 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default in payment to undergo five months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against the appellant/accused stating that 10 months prior to 14.01.2002 (i.e) on the date of occurrence, the marriage was performed between the deceased Jayakodi and her husband Selvaraj, who left the village for attending rig work after leaving his wife with the custody of his maternal uncle viz., Palanivel, the accused. On 10.01.200...
D. Jagannathan Vs. the Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2012 to recover the loss in accordance with law.) 1. In view of the nature of order passed, notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner filed writ petition seeking for writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent - Inspector of Panchayat to dispose of representation of the petitioner dated 22.6.2012 for recovery of the loss sustained by the Panchayat on account of conduct of the 4th respondent. 3. Before ever proceeding to take any action on the representation dated 22.62012 made by the petitioner, the first respondent shall follow due process of law and if the right of respondent No.4 is being affected, appropriate notice shall be given to him so as to avoid allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. With this observation, the writ petition is di...
K. Manthesh Kuttan and Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: W.P.Nos.28406 of 2011 and 28447 of 2011 have been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings having Ref.No.Na.Ka.T5.No.018976/2011, dated 24.10.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue guidelines regulating the use/movement of JCB, Tipper Lorries and Pocline in Nilgiris District and permit the petitioners to use the JCB, Tipper Lorries and Pocline for legitimate agricultural operations in accordance with the said guidelines. M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.28406 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.28447 of 2011 have been filed by the respective writ petitioners, praying to implead the proposed respondent therein viz. In Defence of Environment and Animals, by its Managing Trustee, Elephant G.Rajendran, No.24/51, South Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017 as fourth respondent in the respective writ petitions. M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.P.No.9860 of 200...
Alli Rani Joseph Mathew and Other Vs. P. Arun Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.50/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore and quash the same.) 1. The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.50/2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore. The respondent is the complainant in the case. The respondent has filed the said private complaint alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. Seeking to quash the same, the petitioners have come up before this Court with this petition. 2. The facts of the case would be as follows: The respondent is the eldest son to his parents, namely, Mr.P.Padmanabhan and Dr.Mrs.R.Krishnakumari Padmanabhan. They died on 08.12.1990 and 04.02.2008 respectively. The petitioners 1 to 3 herein are the sisters of the respondent and the 4th petitioner is his brother. According to the respondent, his mother Mrs.Dr.Krishnakum...
M/S. Dasaprakash Pvt Ltd. Vs. the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 for directing the respondent to restore the name of the petitioner to the Register of the Companies Act, 1956 with effect from 13.09.2000.) ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 for the restoration of the name of the petitioner company, which was struck off from the Register of Companies with effect from 13.09.2000. 2. Taking note of the fact that while a large number of companies had been registered, but due to various reasons some of them had failed to take off and the promoters of such companies had been requesting the Government to strike off the name of such companies by adopting an easy to follow method in a time bound manner, the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs thought it fit to launch a Fast Track Scheme enabling such non-starter companies and also the other companies, who want to exit the corporate form of business, without going through th...
C.T. Sampath Vs. Mary Manohari and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 12.12.2011 in I.A.No.148 of 2011 in O.S.No.124 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Chengalpattu.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2011 in I.A.No.148 of 2011 in O.S.No.124 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Chengalpattu. 2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. The respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the partition deed created by the first defendant dated 3.8.2006 in document No.10173, is null and void and not acted upon; to pass an usual preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiff No.1's 1/5th share in the suit properties by dividing the suit properties into 5 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds and to pass a final decree and be prepared to carry out separat...
A. Amarnadh Vs. the Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 6 to 8 and their men and agents from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment over his absolute property situate at Nemmeli village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District of an extent of 953 sq.mts. bearing survey No.216/32 bounded on the west of Bay of Bengal East of landed property bearing survey No.208 managed by the respondents 6 to 8 South of land bearing survey No.216/31 and North of land bearing survey No.216/33 without due process of law.) Common Order 1. 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 on behalf of the parties concerned. 3. It has been stated that the petitioners had purchased the properties in question, from the predecessor-in-title. Thereafter, the l...
Cauvery Neervala Aathara Pathukappau Sangam, Rep. by Its Secretary, Er ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer : W.P.(MD)No.4699 of 2012filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Respondents from carrying the sand quarrying operations along the stretches of rivers, Cauvery and Killidam, which runs through Karur, Trichy, Thanjavur, Nagapattinam and Thiruvarur Districts. W.P.(MD)No.8111 of 2012filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Respondents from constructing the grvel road in the middle of the Kollidam River in between Thalakkudi Toll Gate to Anbil Village of an extent of 25 kms. W.P.(MD)No.8131 of 2012filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Respondents from carrying the sand quarry operations along the stretches of river Cauvery, Amaravathy and Bhavani, which runs through Karur District. W.P.(MD)No.8568 of 2012filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 t...
A. Nandagopala Krishnan Vs. Antony
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-03-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 11.01.2012 made in IA.No.1035/2011 in OS.No.286/2009 by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Plaintiff in OS.NO.286/2009 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli against the acceptance of the counter claim made by the Defendant by way of Additional Written Statement by order dated 11.01.2012 made in IA.No.1035/2011. 2. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Os.NO.286/2009, a suit filed by the Petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 26.12.2008 from the Defendant. 3. The Defendant resisted the claim by contending that the sale deed is a forged one created by the Plaintiff in collusion with one Chandrasekar. It is contended inter...