Chennai Court September 2012 Judgments
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 09.02.2012 passed in W.P.No.17728 of 2011 on the file of the High Court, Madras and allow the writ petition by allowing the above Writ Appeal.) JUDGMENT M.VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Appellant/Second Respondent has filed the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 09.02.2012 in W.P.No.17728 of 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge while passing the orders in the Writ Petition had inter alia observed that .........'the 3rd Respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., should at least allow the petitioner (First Respondent) to go on deputation and further opined that 'the Petitioner (First Respondent) has only less than 10 months of service' and has come to the conclusion that the refusal of the 3rd Respondent to give concurrence at least for the appointment of the Petitioner (the First Respondent) as Company Secretary in the Second Respondent Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishnasamy Vs. the Member Secretary of Chennai Metropolitan Develo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the first respondent vide Letter No.C3/22148/08 dated 25.6.2010 and to quash the same.) ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a communication issued by the first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner to waive Open Space Reservation Charges (OSR Charges) for consideration of his application for the grant of planning permission. 2. I have heard Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 3. The petitioner, his wife and son purchased a property bearing Plot Nos.41, 42, 53 and 54 comprised in R.S.No.4288/71, Satyadev Avenue, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28, under a Sale Deed dated 11.7.2005, registered as document No.1...
Tag this Judgment!A.Annapoorani and Others Vs. K.R.Kaliammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2009 made in O.S.No.358 of 2005 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Coimbatore.) R.BANUMATHI,J This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2009 made in O.S.No.358 of 2005 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Coimbatore decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance based on Ex.A.1 - consent agreement and granting alternative relief directing the appellants/defendants to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 8.9.2005 till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. Unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. For convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 2. The plaintiffs and defendants are related as under: Ramasamy Gounder (died on 24.6.1983) | Nallakkal (died on 9.3.2003) -----------------------------------------|-----...
Tag this Judgment!R.Thangamuthu Pillai Vs. the Joint Commissioner,hindu Religious and Ch ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to provide adequate security with police bandho-bust to the petitioner Board of Trustees as per the representation of the petitioner dated 25.08.2012 for conducting the Purattasi Festival in the A/m.Pattalamman Muthiah Swamy Thirukoil situated at Keela Street, on 18.09.2012, 02.10.2012, 08.10.2012, 09.10.2012, 10.10.2012 and 16.10.2012 with ancient customary right as per the invitation of the festival pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.8132/2012/E3 dated 06.09.2012.) This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to provide adequate security with police bandho- bust to the petitioner Board of Trustees as per the representation of the petitioner dated 25.08.2012 for conducting the Purattasi Festival in the A/m.Pattalamman Muthiah Swamy Thirukoil situa...
Tag this Judgment!T.Subbulakshmi Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Br ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
(Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records relating to Crime No.233 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, praying to call for the records relating to Crime No.233 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. 2. The brief facts narrated in the complaint which was registered as Crime No.233 of 2012 are as follows: One Rajaiah, who claims to be the agreement holder is the complainant. He alleged in his complaint that on 8.9.2008, he entered into an agreement for sale with one Mr.S.Ravi in respect of the vacant building site to an extent of 12000 sq.ft. situated at Old No.189, New No.51, Sholinganallur village comprised in S.No.12/1 and 12/2 bearing Plot No.257, the Seashore Town and a sum of Rs.5 lakh was paid towards sale consideration. According to the complainant, the said S.Ravi claimed himself as the Power Agen...
Tag this Judgment!Maan Sarovar Paras Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gopaldas Dwarakadas Family T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
(Prayer in O.S.A.Nos.185 to 187 of 2012: Appeals against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.3.2012 made in Application Nos.1263 to 1265 of 2011 in O.P.No.203 of 2010.)P.JYOTHIMANI, J.These appeals are directed against the common order passed in Application Nos.1263 to 1265 of 2011 in O.P.No.203 of 2010. While Application No.1263 of 2011 is to set aside the order dated 2.11.2010 passed in O.P.No.203 of 2010 and to cancel the confirmation of effected sale in favour of the third respondent, Application No.1264 of 2011 is for a direction against respondents 1 and 3 to execute registered deed cancelling the registered sale deed bearing document No.3385 of 2010, dated 20.12.2010 registered in the office of the Registrar, Srirangam, and Application No.1265 of 2011 is to direct the first respondent to register the sale deed in respect of the property in Survey No.1041 measuring 8.84 Acres in Melur Village, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District by receiving the balance con...
Tag this Judgment!M.Balakumar Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to hold an enquiry into the illegal acquisition of the entire property in possession of the petitioner at No.202, NSK Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai 26 by the authorities concerned in collusion with the local politically influenced 4th respondent herein and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to pay the due compensation for the extent of land acquired for the Chennai Metro Rail Project at Door No.202, N.S.K.Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai 26 which was under the possession of the petitioner for more than 30 years.) The petitioner was in possession of 7 shops having an extent of 1261 sq.ft. situated at No.202,N.S.K.Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai for more than 30 years, according to him. 2. The lands and the superstructure (shops) were acquired by the respondents 2 and 3 under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001, ("the Act" for the short), for...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Jenitha Jeba Roopa, Rep.by Her Father and Natural Guardian C.Mar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring the selection and allotment made by the second respondent for the MBBS course for the year 2012-2013 in the Government Medical Colleges only insofar as it relates to the creation of 91 excess seats for MBC candidates, 27 excess seats for Scheduled Caste candidates and 12 excess seats fro Backward Class Muslim candidates, as illegal, ultra vires and against the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to give one seat to the petitioner in the MBBS course for the year 2012-2013 in the Government Medical Colleges.) Petitioner, who is an applicant for admission in the first year MBBS course, 2012-2013, has filed this writ petition on the ground that she ought to have been admitted in anyone of the Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu and the admission given to her in a Self-Financing Private Medical College is not proper and prayed for admitting her in ...
Tag this Judgment!Chemoil Adani Pvt. Ltd Represented by Its Manager, Devendra Mishra Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(This writ petition is 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 Respondent, and, quash the Order dated 27.07.2012 bearing number A.C.A.A.R 35/2012-13 D.Disc.Acts Cell II/19729/2012 passed by the Respondent as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and, to direct the Respondent to consider afresh the advance ruling application filed on 13.06.2012 by the present petitioner on merits, and, dispose such advance ruling application in a time bound manner.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that an application had been made, by the petitioner, before the respondent, seeking certain clarifications relating to the eligibility of tax, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, on the purchase or sale of fuel, ...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppan Vs. Karuppannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 17.12.2009 in I.A.No.345 of 2007 in O.S.No.86 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Attur.) The Petitioner/Proposed Party has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.12.2009 in I.A.No.345 of 2007 in O.S.No.86 of 2006 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Attur. 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing I.A.No.345 of 2007 (impleading application) in a suit on a pronote which is an essentially a transaction between Respondents 1 and 2 and further that no decree can be passed against the Petitioner. 3. Yet another contention projected by the Petitioner is that the sale of the property belonged to the 2nd Respondent which is not going to anyway affect the decision rendered in the suit. 4.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the decision in Pichaimani V. C.Selvaran...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »