Chennai Court September 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/S. Grow Group Rep by Its Proprietor J. Durai Babu Vs. Dr. Vijay Bing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: The contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for disobeying the order passed by this court, dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.4740 of 2012.) 1. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the direction issued by this Court, by its order, dated 29.02.2012, made in Writ Petition No.4740 of 2012, had been complied with by the respondent. 2 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. In such circumstances, as no further orders are necessary, the contempt petition stands closed....
Friends Club Rep. by Secretary Viswanatham and Others Vs. the Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent dated 17.8.2012 made in proceedings Proc.No.PandE2(1)/4297/2012 and quash the said order of the respondent.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of this writ petition, it had been submitted, on behalf of the respondent, that the impugned order, suspending the licence issued in favour of the petitioner, may be set aside. However, the petitioner may be directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent, pursuant to the notice issued to him, as per the procedures prescribed, under Rule 22(1) of The Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981. 3. It had been further submitted that the respondent would consider the objections filed by the petitioner, if any, and pass appropriate orders thereon, based on ...
Kandasmay Vs. the Union of India, Rep, by Its Secretary, Ministry of S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order, dated 8.6.2012, passed in I.A.No.1108 of 2011, in O.S.No.621 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal.) 1. Considering the nature of the order to be passed in this Revision Petition, coupled with the fact that the respondents have expressed no objection for allowing I.A.No.1108 of 2011, there is no need to issue notice to them. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.621 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal, is the revision petitioner herein. He filed the suit for declaration and injunction. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application, viz., I.A.No.1036 of 2008, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property with the help of Taluk Surveyor and to measure 'A' schedule property and to note the physical features. The said application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Later, th...
isaac, Chennai Vs. the Executive Officer Pammal Municipality, Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of mandamus, for bearing the respondent from initiating or taking any coercive action to collect any tax from the petitioner in respect of the Assessment No. 5450 in Door No.1 Maraimalai Adigalar Street, Pammal Chennai.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2.Even though the petitioner had prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondent from initiating or taking any coercive action to collect the property tax from the petitioner, in respect of the Assessment No. 5450 relating to the property at Door No.1, Maraimalai Adigalar Street, Pammal, Chennai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the respondent, raising all the grounds available to him, incl...
Vadambigai Vs. Mangayarjarasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Second Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 8.4.2004 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Myladuthurai, in A.S.No.105 of 2003 reversing the judgement and decree dated 3.6.2003 passed by the District Munsif Court, Sirkazhi in O.S.No.101 of 1994.) 1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant in the suit as against the judgement and decree dated 8.4.2004 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Myladuthurai, in A.S.No.105 of 2003 reversing the judgement and decree dated 3.6.2003 passed by the District Munsif Court, Sirkazhi in O.S.No.101 of 1994, which was one for declaration and mandatory injunction. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) The respondent herein/plaintiff...
S. Samayamuthu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Home Sec ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the case in Crime No.90 of 2012 on the file of the respondent No.5 and the complaint of the petitioner dated 09.02.2012, to be entrusted to the respondent No.4 for investigation of the case and file the final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court.) 1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to transfer the case in Crime No.90 of 2012 on the file of the 5th respondent viz., Inspector of Police, Oomachikulam Police Station, Oomathikulam, Madurai, on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 09.02.2012 and to entrust the case to the 4th respondent / Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and to file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within a stipulated time. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 21.02.2012, the learned Additional Advocate General took notice f...
P. Padmanaban Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire recordds insofar relates to Award passed in Industrial Dispute No.31 of 2004 dated 11.06.2007 and quash the same and consequently remand back the same to dispose the I.D.No.31 of 2004 on merits by the Labour Court, Cuddalore.) 1. The petitioner was employed as a Salesman on daily wages by the second respondent Co-operative Society from 01.07.2000. He was placed under suspension on 13.09.2001. A charge memo dated 13.09.2001 was issued making certain allegations against the petitioner and thereafter, an enquiry was held and the petitioner was dismissed from service based on the enquiry report dated 24.04.2002. The conciliatory efforts of the petitioner through the conciliation machinery failed and he took up the matter before the first respondent Labour Court by filing an application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Indust...
T. Boopathi Raja Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District an ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission for the P.K.Mookiah Thevar Death Anniversary programmes such as paying tributes at the Grave Yard at 5.00 am, procession at 4.00 pm and the public meeting at 6.00 pm in Usilampatti on 06.09.2012 and also to provide with adequate police protection.) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be the Secretary of Piramalai Kallar Youth Federation at Usilampatti. 2. In this writ petition he has sought for a direction to consider his representation, dated 04.08.2012 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. In that representation, he had stated that the Federation to which he belonged use to conduct Gurupooja in the memory of P.K.Mookiah Thevar, who was their leader, on 6th September of every year. During that day, they use to conduct a procession culminating in a public meeting. For the last 20 years,...
M/S. Supereme Poultry Private Limited, Rep. by Its Deputy General Mana ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.586 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the workers working at the land of the petitioner situated in Survey No.698/1, 697, 718/1 1B, 717/1, 704, 705, 706, 706, 708/2, 709 Kodanthur Village, Karur Taluk and to the properties of the petitioner located in the landed property on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.12.2011. Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.3085 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings NIL dated 2.3.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to renew the permission pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 31.1.2012.) Common Order &nbs...
Smt. Sudha and Others Vs. R. Natarajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree dated 18.3.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.105 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.) R.BANUMATHI,J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the award dated 18.3.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.105 OF 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore challenging the quantum as well as the fastening of liability upon deceased V.Sampathkumar. 2. Deceased Sampath Kumar worked as a Project Officer in the Department of Civil Engineering Department in Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore from 2004 to 2006. In August, 2006, he started his partnership business along with his father - Vasudevan under name and style of Athanoor Amman Textiles. On 25.2.2008, when deceased Sampathkumar, Lourdhuraja, Rayer Peter and Rajendran were proceeding to Athanoor Amman Textiles in an Ambassador Car bearing Regn.No.MSL.4900 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »