Chennai Court September 2012 Judgments
R. Palanisamy Vs. R. Shanmugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 1.3.2012 passed in I.A.No.283 of 2009 in O.S.No.2406 of 2008 on the file of the Honourable I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and allow this revision.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.2406 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore is the revision petitioner. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 31.3.2003 in Document No.726 of 2003 was obtained fraudulently and the document is null and void and for injunction. He valued the suit at Rs.3000/- and paid the Court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for the declaratory relief. The respondent/ defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., stating that the suit has not been properly valued and the declaratory relief ought to have been valued under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy and Another Vs. Poonkhodi
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 of the learned District Munsif Court, Perambalur in I.A.No.469 of 2009 in O.S.No.165 of 2008 dated 28.07.2009.) The Petitioners/Defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 28.07.2009 in I.A.No.469 of 2009 in O.S.No.165 of 2008 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Perambalur. 2. The Learned District Munsif, Perambalur while passing the orders in I.A.No.469 of 2009 in O.S.No.165 of 2008, has, among other things observed that 'Petitioners and the Respondent have admitted that there are mistakes in the surveyor report, plan and the surveyor plan and as such, in the interest of justice has ordered for reissue of commissioner warrant by directing the earlier commissioner to inspect the suit property with the help of District surveyor inspector and to submit his report along with plan and measurements and also determined...
Tag this Judgment!Salzer Electronics Ltd Vs. Sg Controls and Switchgear
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
K.CHandRU, J. 1. Both applications were filed by the applicant / plaintiff, seeking for an interim injunction with reference to an infringement of the applicant's registered patent bearing No.198122 in respect of Integral Cam Operated Rotary Switch by manufacture and sale of products identical to the applicant's products and also seeking for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner passing off Cam Operated Rotary Switches manufactured and sold by them by using identical or deceptively similar product, same or similar trade dress, colour scheme, get-up and layout. 2. Pending notices on the Original Applications, no ex parte order of injunction was granted. A counter affidavit, dated 09.04.2011 has been filed in both original applications. The applicant has filed a reply affidavit, dated 25.04.2011. 3. The applicant / plaintiff had filed a suit for the grant of similar relief of permanent in nature. On suit notice being served, the first defendant / first resp...
Tag this Judgment!M.Senthilkumar Vs. the Additional Superintendent of Police and Another
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 Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the confiscation notice issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.43/Koo.Kaa.Ka/MaViA/E/2012 dated 13.08.2012 relating to petitioner's Maruthi 800 car bearing Regn.No TN 22 AD 9213 and quash the same.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice, dated 13.08.2012, issued by the first respondent, under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, proposing to confiscate the vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 22 AD 9213, which is alleged to have been involved in the transporting of beer cans. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the first respondent, on 01.10.2012. Thereafter, t...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi School and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition in W.P.No.28305 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the reords of the 3rd respondent relating to the fee determined in respect of the petitioner School bearing R.C.No.8/PSFDC/PC/2010 dated 7.5.2010 and quash the same and consequentially forbear the respondents from taking any steps towards enforcing or imposing or otherwise issuing directions to the petitioner's school in the matter of collection of fees from tis students. Writ Petition in W.P.No.28306 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of declaration declaring that the provisions enacted under Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 is not applicable to petitioner school and any order passed or direction issued by the 3rd respondent in pursuant to the fixing of fees for the petitioner school as invalid....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Dhaya College of Engineering Vs. the Secretary to Government, Hig ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Lr.No.AUTMDU/REG/1- 187/2012-187 dated 06.07.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent herein to grant provisional affiliation to the petitioner college with counselling code to participate in the Counselling and for admission of the students into the petitioner college in the courses 1. B.E., (Civil Engineering), 2. B.E., (Mechanical Engineering), 3. B.E., (Electrical and Electronic Engineering), 4. Electronics and Communication Engineering and 5. Computer Science Engineering in the petitioner college.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Lr.No.AUTMDU/REG/1-187/2012-187 dated 06.07.2012, with a consequential relief of directing the respondents, to grant provisional affiliation to the petitioner wi...
Tag this Judgment!Arif Nisa Vs. Abdul Mutalif
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records pertaining to the order and decretal dated 29.09.2009 passed in I.A.No.413 of 2009 in O.S.No.289 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Erode District and set aside the same.) The Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 29.09.2009 in I.A.No.413 of 2009 in O.S.No.289 of 2008 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Erode. 2. The Learned Principal District Munsif, while passing orders in I.A.No.413 of 2009 in O.S.No.289 of 2008 on 29.09.2009, has, among other things, observed in para 14 to the effect that '.... In the case on hand, this Court already has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was not served with the summons and he came to know about the decree only on 27.05.2009 etc.', and resultantly, allowed the application without costs. 3. It is not in dispute that the Respondent/Defendant filed I.A.No.413...
Tag this Judgment!J.Suganth and Another Vs. G. Kalaivani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the petition and order dated 9.4.2012 made in I.A.No.126 of 2012 in O.S.No.279 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.279 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge Court, Erode, are the revision petitioners. 2. They filed the suit for partition. During the examination of PW2 the application was filed to receive the Will dated 17.3.2008 in favour of the petitioners and that application was rejected and aggrieved by the same this revision is filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Court below failed to appreciate that the Will which is sought to be filed was already produced in G.W.O.P.No.10 of 2010 even on 14.11.2011 and the parties must be given an opportunity to produce the document in support to their case and such opportunity should not be denied and ...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaraj Vs. Karuppannan and Others
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.54 of 2008 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.54 of 2008 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.54 of 2008 (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 property mortgaged 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.Selvarani an...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer and A.D.O. Tamilnadu Housing Unit Vs. Baby Saro ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to restrain the opposite party demanding Rs.1,20,222/- from the complainant and to issue sale deed for plot No.27 of NGGO colony and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dated 14.03.2008 in CC.43/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.08.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this Commission made the following order) A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the Appellant. 2. The complainant owned the plot No.27 of NGGO colony at Nagapattinam from the opposite party Housing Board and constructed the house during ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »