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.
Union of India by Its General Manager Southern Railway, Chennai Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 04.06.2009 made in OA.No.30/2006 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 04.06.2009 made in OA.No.30/2006 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. The claimants, who are the father and mother of the deceased N.Prasab, filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of their son. It was pleaded that on 1.11.1994 at 10.30 a.m. the deceased was travelling in suburban electric train from Mambalam Railway Station in order to proceed to his office at Poonamalle High Road, Chennai. Due to heavy rush and pushing of passengers, he fell from the running train between Mambalam and Kodambakkam Railway Stations on the adjoining track and was run over by electric train proceeding towards Tambaram and died on the spo...
M. Ramanathan Vs. the General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in I.D.No.88 of 2006, quash the order dated 6.12.2007 insofar as confirmation of charges framed and punishment imposed on the petitioner and direct the second respondent to make payment of full backwages and all attendant benefits inclusive of the terminal benefits.) 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short CGIT), Chennai made in I.D.No.88 of 2006, dated 06.12.2007 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to make payment of full backwages and all attendant benefits including terminal benefits. By the impugned Award, the labour court held that the removal of the petitioner was legal and justified and he was not entitled for any relief. 2. The writ petition w...
M/S. Sree Annapoorna Agro Foods Represented by Its Proprietor Vs. Unio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring rule 7(2) of the Blended Edible Vegetable Oils (Grading and Marking) Rules, 1991 to the extent of preventing use of common or generic name of the oils used for preparation on the package or containers of the trade article as ultra vires of the provisions of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 and other enactments dealing with the subject issue besides violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently forbearing the respondents or any other officer or person under them in any manner restricting the petitioner from using the common or generic name of the oil on the container, receptacle, pouches, packages, etc. in marketing the Blended Edible Vegetable Oils.) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a registered manufacturer of vegetable oil products. They are manufacturing t...
S. Senthamarai Vs. Tamilnadu Housing Board, Represented by Its Chairma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in letter No.A.L.1/7297/83, dated 12.7.2012, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed with respect to the property in MIG Flat No.M.14/7, (Ground Floor), Besant Nagar, Phase-1 Scheme, Chennai-600 090 in the joint name of the petitioner and the third respondent with necessary recitals protecting the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the property.) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent, i.e., Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Besant Nagar Division, Chennai, dated 12.7.2012 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in respect of the property in MIG ...
M.K. Sahul Hameed and Another Vs. N. Abdul Hug and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order, dated 12.11.2007 made in W.O.P.No.1 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, (Wakf Tribunal), Dindigul.) Common Order: Both Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Principal Sub-Judge, Dindigul (Wafk Tribunal), in W.O.P.No.1 of 2000, dated 12.11.2007. 2. The first CRP viz. C.R.P(NPD)(MD).No.1616 of 2008 was admitted on 28.08.2012. Pending CRP, interim injunction was granted initially for a period of two weeks and subsequently, extended from time to time till 27.11.2008. During the pendency of the said CRP, since the 2nd respondent passed away, the legal heir has been brought on record viz. 5th respondent. 3. The 3rd respondent in the WOP, viz., the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, through its Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, also filed another CRP in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2009 of 2008. In that CRP, notice was ...
K. Murugan Vs. Central Empowered Committee, New Delhi and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the Respondent No.4 vide Letter No.Eee Mee Po/V/Pudur/Ko.Kattu/A.No.124/2012 dated 30.04.2012 on the file of the Respondent No.4, against the Electric Connection No.389-004-826 TF-III, Pudur and to quash the same as illegal and to direct the Respondent No.3 to grant the license in favour of the petitioner.) ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the notice issued by the Junior Engineer, Distribution, TNGEDCO, Pudur dated 30.04.2012. 2. By the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was informed that as per the orders of the Supreme Court in the case known as Godawarman Thirumalpad case, if the petitioner fails to get appropriate licence from the Forest Authority, the power connection given to the petitioner would be disconnected without any further instruction. Challenging the s...
Agotharam Pillai (Died) and Others Vs. Mahalakshmi Ammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree of Principal Subordinate Judges Court at Vriddhachalam passed in A.S.No.37 of 2010 dated 08.09.2011, partly reversing the judgment and decree of the I Additional District Munsiff Court at Vriddhachalam passed in O.S.No.1114 of 1996 dated 29.01.2010.) 1. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr.V.Anand, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The legal representatives of the first defendant in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiff in the original suit figures as the first respondent. The other respondents are Defendants 2 to 6 in the Original Suit. The suit was filed by the first respondent Mahalakshmi Ammal for declaring her to be the absolute owner of the suit properties and for a consequential perpetual injunction not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Agotharam Pillai, had been arrayed as the first defendant. Respondents 2 t...
K. Kaliaperumal Vs. Union of India Rep. by Secretary Ministry of Human ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Quo-Warranto directing the third respondent to Show Cause as to on what authority he continues as Vice Chancellor of the Pondicherry University after his term of office ended on 15.4.2012.) 1. The petitioner, who is General Secretary of Pondicherry University Non-Teaching Staff Welfare Association, filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Quo-Warranto directing the third respondent to show cause as to on what authority he continues as Vice Chancellor of the Pondicherry University after his term of office ended on 15.4.2012. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows: (a) The third respondent was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the Pondicherry University for a period of five years beginning from 16.4.2007 and the said period of five years came to an end on 15.4.2012. As per the Statute of Pondicherry University framed under Sect...
Gunasekaran and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass necessary orders on the petitioners' representation dated 15.10.2011 13.4.2012 02.05.2012 7.5.2012 and 31.5.2012 for the respondents to survey and demarcate petitioner patta land to an extent of 40 cents as per the legal title.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass necessary orders on the petitioners' representation seeking to survey and demarcate petitioners' patta land to an extent of 40 cents. 2. According to the petitioners, inspite of making repeated representations, before the second respondent, no action is taken and, therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on 31.5.2012 before the first respondent for issuing direction to the second respondent to resurvey the land in S.No.839 and to issue revised patta and to mark fie...
Palanisamy Vs. Chinnakandan @ Kandasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed as against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem in O.S.No.125 of 2006.) 1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the plaintiff as against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem in O.S.No.125 of 2006. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: a] The plaintiff/appellant herein filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: To pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants 1 to 3- A) directing the division of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties into 6 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such divided share to the plaintiff and directing the defendants 1 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »