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.
M. Nayagam Vs. the Chief Engineer Public Works Department Chepauk, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.SR.No.17980 of 2012.) ORDER 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.SR.No.17980 of 2012, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the revision petitioner/plaintiff's husband was not to be seen or heard for more than seven years and before his absence, he was working as a Clerk in the Public Works Department at Tambaram. However, the Controlling Authority is only the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Chepauk. Hence, the suit was filed before the City Civil Court, Chennai; but it was returned on the ground that the court had no territorial jurisdiction. 3. A mere perusal of the plaint would disp...
K.P. Jaganathan Vs. the Commissioner, Dept. of Employment and Training ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Amended Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the recruitment/selection process initiated by the respondent No.4 in the year 2010 to fill up 25 vacancies of Village Assistants by seeking sponsorship of names from the office of the respondent No.3 alone, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.429, Revenue, dated 08.08.2007 without making wide publicity by way of advertisement in dailies, notice board, internet, etc. by inviting application from all eligible persons of general public to participate and secure public employment, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.) 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of declaration, declaring the recruitment /selection process initiated by the Tahsildar, Tittakudi, Cuddalore District in the year 2010 to fill up 25 vacancies of Village Assistant by seeking sponsorship of name...
M. Rajasekaran Vs. the Director General of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector of Police for the C list of the year 2010-11 communicated by the 1st respondent in RC No.111/NGBV(1)/P/35C list/2011/39, dated 22.8.2011 and promote him as Inspector of Police and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits at par with his juniors.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered the service, as a directly recruited Sub Inspector of Police, through a selection conducted by the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, on 21.4.1999. The petitioner had successfully completed his probation and his name had been brought into the `B’ list, on 21.4.1999. The petitioner had received 256 rewards and he did not have any adverse remark against his...
Best Cotton Mills, (Unit of Best Corporation Limited), Dharapuram Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Prayer: Both Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in his letter No.SEU/UDT/AEE/GL/AE/SDM/F.HT GL/D.No.0513/12 dated 12.03.2012, quash the same as unsustainable in law and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to install dedicated feeder vide application dated 21.07.2005.) COMMON ORDER 1. Both Writ Petitions are filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in his letter No.SEU/UDT/AEE/GL/AE/SDM/F.HT GL/D.No.0513/12 dated 12.03.2012, quash the same as unsustainable in law and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to install dedicated feeder vide application dated 21.07.2005. 2. Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, learned standing counsel appearing for the electricity board takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent both the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. 3...
Murugesan Vs. Kandhayee and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Prayer: Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in M.C.O.P.No.199 of 1997.) ORDER 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in M.C.O.P.No.199 of 1997, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. The epitome and the long and short of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the the MCOP No.199 of 1997 seeking compensation concerning the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident. (ii) The revision petitioner herein-Murugesan was arrayed as the driver of the offending vehicle and R3 herein-Somasundaram was the owner of the vehicle. (iii) Ex-parte award was passed. (iv) Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein-Murugesan filed the application I.A.No.518 of 2009 to get the delay of 4019 days condoned in filing the application to get the ex-parte award set aside. (v) The said application w...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Represented by Its Chairman, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Prayers: Writ Appeal (MD)No.407 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6798 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.408 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6799 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.409 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6800 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.410 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6801 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.411 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6973 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.412 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.5.2012 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6974 of 20...
Augustine David Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Principa ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to award one mark to the petitioner for Question No.25 and Question No.10 of Part III Physics Examination respectively and consequently direct the fifth respondent to revise the petitioners' rank for admission to the M.B.B.S. course and admit them in the appropriate college as per the revised rank.) COMMON ORDER 1. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, both the cases are taken up together for final disposal and a common order is being passed. 2. In both the writ petitions the challenge is to the answer given in respect of question No.25 (B series) and No.10 (A series) of Part III Physics Examination is wrong and thereby the petitioners have lost one mark for the questions. According to them, the question and the key answer is given as follows: In the photoelectric phenomenon if the ratio of the frequency ...
G. Chandran Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by Assistant Division ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the order dated 25.05.2012 issued by the Second Respondent in respect of the land comprised in Old Survey No.1122/2 (part) and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents, their men, servants, agents or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands comprised in the land comprised in Old Survey No.1122/2 (part) measuring an extent of 58 cents comprised in Town Survey No.1 now sub-divided as T.S.No.1/2 situate at Ward D.Block No.115, Madhavaram Village, Madavaram Taluk, Thiruvallur District.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 25.05.2012 issued by the Second Respondent in respect of the land comprised in Old Survey No.1122/2 (part) and consequently direct the respondents, their men, servants, agents or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the petiti...
M/S. Shanmugam Foundation Pvt. Ltd, Chennai Vs. Sivakalai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree passed by the District and Session Judge, Coimbatore, made in I.A No: 365 of 2012 in O.S. No: 160 of 2012 dated 20.04.2012.) 1. The petitioner has called in question an order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, made in I.A. No: 365 of 2012 in O.S. No: 160 of 2012 dated 20.04.2012 in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. The Revision petitioner is the 3rd defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit for a permanent injunction and for a direction to the defendant to account for the income from the suit properties. The 1st respondent plaintiff also prayed for an interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. restraining the defendants from in any manner encumbering or alienating or dealing with the suit schedule property by putting up any construction or otherwise pending disposal of the suit and to grant an order of interim injunc...
S. Sundaramurthy Vs. the Registrar of Co-op, Nvn Maligai, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-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 records relating to the order Na.Ka.4951/2012/O.Na.3 dated 19.03.2012 passed by the 1st respondent and Na.Ka.1512/2010 Aa.1 dated 26.04.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent and Na.Ka.4951/2012/O. Na.3 dated 22.05.2012 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently restore the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.1512/2010 Aa.1 dated 31.10.2011 by discharging the petitioner from charges in the disciplinary proceedings.) 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order Na.Ka.4951/2012/O.Na.3 dated 19.03.2012 passed by the 1st respondent as also the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in pursuance to the direction issued by the 1st respondent, with further prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus to restore the original o...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »