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.
Kamala Vs. Nachiammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998 passed in A.S.No.25 of 1998 by the District Judge, Cuddalore reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1997 passed in O.S.No.326 of 1991 by the Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court in A.S.No.25 of 1998 dated 18.12.1998 in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court made in O.S.No.326 of 1991 dated 11.11.1997 in decreeing the suit. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants before the Trial Court. For convenience, the ranks of the parties before the Trial Court are maintained in this Judgment. 3. The case of the plaintiffs as stated in her plaint would be as follows: The suit properties are self acquired properties of the plaintiff's husband Sekar. The defendants 1 and 2 are his parents. Sekar died intestate on 01.09.1991. Therefore, the plaintiff and the firs...
Ganesh Vs. the State By, Inspector of Police, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 11.11.2010 made in S.C.No.18 of 2010 on the file of learned Sessions Judge for Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore and set aside the same by allowing the appeal.) P.DEVADASS, J., The appellant is A2 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.18 of 2010, on the file of Sessions Court for Trial of Bomb Blast Cases at Coimbatore. 2. A2, Ganesh and A1 Ramesh were prosecuted in the said Court, on the allegation that on 17.08.2009, at about 6.30 p.m., they have trespassed into Door No.1, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, situate in New Sidhapudhur, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore and A2 strangulated her, while A1 smoothered her with a pillow, thus caused her death and thereafter stolen her wrist-watch, cell phone, gold ear-stud and bangles. 3. Both were tried together for charges under Sections 449, 302 and 380 IPC. 4. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence consisting of motive, last scene ...
State of Tamil Nadu Represented by District Collector, Namakkal and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2003 made in A.S.No.15 of 2002 by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2001made in O.S.No.660 of 1999 by the learned Sub Judge, Namakkal.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.15 of 2002 dated 15.10.2003 in confirming the liability to pay the monthly rent with the modified quantum of rent ordered by the trial court in O.S.No.660 of 1999 dated 28.02.2001 in decreeing the suit as prayed for. 2. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the trial court. 3. For convenience, the rank of parties before the trial court are maintained in this judgment. 4. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the amended plaint would be as follows:- The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendants are in occupation of the building i...
S. Thavasumuthu Vs. D. Sabeetha Secretary to Government School Educati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: The Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 10 and 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71, to punish the respondents for not complying with order dated 10.2.2011 of this Court in W.P.No.11866 of 2006.) At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent had placed before this Court the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.196, School Education Department, dated 27.7.2012. It has been stated that the said Government Order had been passed pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 10.2.2011, in W.P.No.11866 of 2006. In such circumstances, the contempt petition stands closed, as no further orders are necessary....
P. Ravikumar Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to letter No.3127/FR-2/2008-6 dated 3/8/2010 and of the second respondent relating to the proceedings in C.No.S1/43577/07 dated 6/12/2010 and to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as Research Assistant from the date of his initial appointment and to absorb him in any regular post commensurate with his educational qualification.) ORDER 1. The office of Conservator of Forests (Research) Coimbatore by its proceedings dated 17/5/1994 called for the list of candidates to be appointed on daily wage basis to the post of Research Assistant from the District Employment Officer, Madurai District. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings, the Employment Exchange sponsored the list of candidates with the required qualification and ...
Karunanidhi Vs. United India Insurance Company Rep by Its Assistant Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 16.12.2011 made in I.A.No.428 of 2011 in MCOP No.230 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur.) 1. Animadverting upon the fair and final order dated 16.12.2011 passed in I.A.No.428 of 2011 in MCOP No.230 of 2006, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2, Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner who would echo the heart burns of his client to the effect that his client being the insured, filed MCOP and got an ex parte award, in view of the fact that the respondent failed to appear before the claims Tribunal. Subsequently E.P. also was filed and in that also they remained ex parte, hence the Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. The Insurance Company concerned filed the application to get the delay of 1528 days condoned in filing the application under Orde...