Chennai Court September 2012 Judgments
J.Udhayakumari Vs. the Senior Manager State Bank of India
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 certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 11.6.2012 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to sanction the education loan for the petitioner's son namely J.Lokesh Kumar.) The petitioner's son joined B.E. (Computer Science) course in Aringar Anna Institute of Technology, Chennai during the academic year 2011-12. The duration of the course is four years. Originally the petitioner's husband made an application dated 27.7.2011 with the respondent Bank for educational loan to their son. Since her husband was a defaulter, the application was not considered and no orders were passed. In these circumstances, the petitioner's son made an another application dated 28.3.2012 wherein the petitioner was the co-applicant. However, the application for educational loan was rejected by an order dated 11.6.2012 on ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.R.Soranam and Others Vs. Manonmainam Sundaranar University Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post of Assistant Professors from the date of their appointments. W.P.(MD)No.4570 of 2012:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order in Ref.No.MSU/R/ESTT.T/TEMP.LECT/2012 dated 31.03.2012 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Professor from the date of his appointment.) COMMON ORDER This Common Order shall dispose of W.P.(MD) Nos.3935 and 4570 of 2012, as common question of law, and facts are involved in both the writ petitions. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from W.P.(MD)No.4570 of 2012. 3. Manonmainam Sundaranar Unive...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.Mohamed Hanifa Vs. Abdul Rahim and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.01.2001 in A.S.No.51 of 1998 on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.1998 in O.S.No.623 of 1985 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.) The Appellant/2nd Defendant has focussed the present Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.01.2001 in A.S.No.51 of 1998 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai dated 09.02.1998 in O.S.No.623 of 1985 and allowing the Appeal with costs. 2. Earlier, before the trial Court in the main suit filed by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, during trial, 1 to 10 issues have been framed. On the side of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 have been marked. On the side...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaraman and Another Vs. Munusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as against the Fair and Decretal order dated 14.09.2009 in I.A.No.337 of 2009 in O.S.No.39 of 2003 on the file of the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur.) The Petitioners/Defendants 2 and 3 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order in I.A.No.337 of 2009 in O.S.No.39 of 2003 dated 14.09.2009 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur. 2. The Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur, while passing orders in I.A.No.337 of 2009 (filed by the Revision Petitioners/Defendants 2 and 3), has, among other things, observed that 'the present application has been filed only with a view to protract the pending case and further, the averments made in the application have already been made in the additional written statement filed by the Petitioners/Defendants 2 and 3 as early as on 19.08.2008. Once again very same avermen...
Tag this Judgment!A.Yamini and Another Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to write Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test (TNTET exam) scheduled to be held on 03.10.2012.)(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to desist from directly appointing any candidate who have passed in the Teachers Eligibility Test for appointment as B.T. Assistant for the year 2012 without subjecting them to separate selection process for such appointment and to convene a fresh Teachers Eligibility Test for appointment as B.T. Assistant by allotting higher percentage of marks in the main subject, so as to enable the successful candidates therein to compete along with the present selectees in the separate selection process for appointment as B.T. Assistants for the year 2012.)COMMON ORDERAs per Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Ed...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. P. Paul Thangam Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from deviating existing High Tension Electricity Line to pass through the petitioner's patta land measuring to 30 cents comprised in Survey No: 12/1A2 of Erumaiyur Village, Sriperumbatur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.) This Writ Petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to forbear from deviating existing High Tension Electricity Line to pass through the petitioner's patta land measuring to 30 cents comprised in Survey No: 12/1A2 of Erumaiyur Village, Sriperumbatur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the land measuring an extent of 30 cents comprised in Survey No.12/1A2 of Erumaiyur Village, Sriperumbattur Taluk, Kancheepuramm District, having purchased the same vide Sale Deed bearing Document No: 2558 of 2004 registered. There was a proposal of formation ...
Tag this Judgment!Dravidamani and Another Vs. Muthukumarasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow the above Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 3.1.2012 passed in Check Slip No.19/XXVII/N Diary No.3 in O.S.No.211 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Cuddalore.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.211 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, are the revision petitioners. 2. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for injunction and also for declaring the release deed dated 28.1.2011 as null and void. The plaintiffs valued the first item of suit property at Rs.1000/- and the second item of suit property at Rs.5000/- and paid the Court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Court Fee Examiner raised objection to the value given by the plaintiffs and stated that the proper Court fee is payable under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuati...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. StalIn Vs. Saidai SA.Duraisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
K.VENKATARAMAN, J. The present application has been filed seeking to strike out the pleadings in the election petition as envisaged under Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. 2. For the sake of convenience, the applicant herein is referred as - Returned Candidate -, the first respondent is referred as -election petitioner - and the other respondents are referred in their respective position. 3. The election petitioner filed the election petition to declare the election of the Returned Candidate as null and void. Several grounds have been raised in the election petition. In the present application, the Returned Candidate seeks to eschew the pleadings in paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 62 and 63 of the election petition and also paragraphs 33 and 34 of the election petition together with video footage recorded on 24.3.2011, 6.4.2011 and 7.4.2011 concerning police inaction against alleged illegal acts of distributrion of money to the voters, without any material particulars. 4. The reasons set ...
Tag this Judgment!K.Jothirani, Rep.by Her Power of Attorney T.M.Bommathevan Vs. the Dist ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3116/M1/2012, dated 28.08.2012 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.) When the matter came up on 18.09.2012, upon perusal of the impugned order, by observing that there is absolutely no cause of action or details of the complaint, dated 30.07.2012, warranting the District Registrar (Administration) in the cadre of Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Madurai (North), to issue a show cause notice to the writ petitioner and also by observing that the impugned order is bereft of details, as to what action, the said authority has contemplated, on the failure of the petitioner to submit documents and explanation to the show cause notice dated 28.08.2012, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the District Regist...
Tag this Judgment!Sethurajan Vs. Rajalakshmi Rep. by Her Power Agent V.Ramadass
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 12.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.436 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi.) The Petitioner/Defendant has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 12.10.2009 in I.A.No.436 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2007 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi. 2. The Learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi while dismissing the interlocutory application No.436 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on 12.10.2009, has, among other things, observed that 'the attestor of the document is to be examined to prove the execution of the document. If the attestor is not available, then, only the Court can allow other witness and further stated that attestor's signature is to be identified by any of known members. SRO, Thiruthuraipoondi is not an attesting witness and not competent to give evidence'. 3....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »