Chennai Court September 2012 Judgments
Rethinaboopathy Ammal Vs. the District Collector, Thanjavur District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(Writ Appeal preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 3.12.2008, made in W.P.No.19109 of 1999.) ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The appellant herein, as writ petitioner, unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition proceedings, resulting in her preferring this appeal. 2. To put the facts in a nut shell, the appellant is the owner of lands in S.No.372/1, classified as 'patta manavari' in the revenue records, measuring 1.07.5 hectare. A notice under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31/1978) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued to her on 21.7.1999 and an enquiry was conducted on 9.8.1999, wherein the land owner participated and submitted her objections and after rejecting such objections, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 30.9.1999, seeking the lands to be acquired for providing house sites to 75 eligible houseless Adi Dravidar families. Award enquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!N.R.Buhari Naleem @ Buhari and Others Vs. P.Manickam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(Prayer:- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 4.10.2007 made in MCOP.Nos.616, 617, 618 and 619/2004 by the learned VI Judge, Small Causes Court (MACAT) Chennai.) COMMON JUDGEMENT: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the claimants against the Judgement and Decree dated 4.10.2007 made in MCOP.Nos.616, 617, 618 and 619/2004 by the learned VI Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,84,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. to the injured claimant (N.R.Buhari Naleem @ Buhari) in MCOP.No.616/ 2004 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that had occurred on 6.10.2002, a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. to the claimants in MCOP.No.617/2004, who are the parents of the deceased child, aged about 4 years old who died in the same accident, a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cen...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Rep.by the General Manager, Southern Railway and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records relating to the order passed by the second respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.666 of 2009, dated 13.11.2009 and quash the same.) ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The first respondent herein has applied for the post of Senior Clerks, Group 'C' services, pursuant to the notification issued by the third petitioner/Railway Recruitment Board in the year 2005 and got selected under the ST quota. By letter dated 11.3.2006, he was called for verification of certificates with a condition that he should produce caste certificate in the enclosed prescribed format. Accordingly, he appeared for certificates verification on 28.3.2006 and submitted all the certificates including the community certificate dated 24.7.1993 in a permanent card format issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, the fourth petitioner herein, by letter dated 20.6....
Tag this Judgment!K. Duraisamy Vs. Rajendra Babu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(Second Appeal filed under Section 100 and Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.V), Chengalpet, in A.S.No.25 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2002 made in O.S.No.185 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvallur.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.25 of 2002 dated 23.01.2004 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court made in O.S.No.185 of 1990 dated 23.04.2002 in dismissing the suit. 2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff and the respondents 1 to 7 were the defendants before the trial court. The respondents 8 to 10 are the legal representatives of the deceased 6th respondent / 6th defendant. For convenience, the status of parties before the trial Court are adopted in this judgment. 3. The case of the plai...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary and Correspondent, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga thevar Colleg ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,directing the first respondent, Joint Director of Collegiate Education to consider and pass orders forthwith on the petitioner's proposal dated 27.03.2012 (re-submitted on 02.08.2012) seeking prior approval for the dismissal of the second respondent herein from service. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's proposal for dismissal of second respondent from service on the proved misconduct. 2. The College Committee of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar College, Usilampatti, Madurai District placed the second respondent under suspension with effect from 18.11.2011, in view of the contemplated enquiry against him for the serious misconduct. 3. The second respondent, thereafter, was issued a charge memo dated 18.11.2011 and finding the explanation ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrf Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Andndash; Sales Tax, V. Ramanathan Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(Prayer: Petitions filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ , order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for impugned proceedings of the respondent passed in G.D.No.50 of 2012-13 dated 09.09.2012 and quash the same.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed: i) The petitioner shall pay Rs.1,77,606/-, which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority concerned, while passing the detention order. ii) On payment of such tax amount, the goods detained shall be released and the same shall be subject to the final adjudication order, which may be ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Hotel Meera Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Proceedings No. PandE2(4)/ 4297/2012 dated 16.08.2012 passed by the Second Respondent viz. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in so far as it relates to FL 3 Licence issued to the Petitioner Hotel in Licence No.14/2000-2001 and quash the same.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 16.8.2012, suspending the F.L.3 licence granted in favour of the petitioner temporarily under Rule 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended, inter alia, that the second respondent had no authority or power to suspend the F.L.3 licence issued in favour of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. C.M. Hotel Rep. by Its Proprietor E. Chinnasamy Vs. the Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(Prayer: 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 pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Ma(ma)Aa.2 (4)/1467/2011 dated 14.6.2012 quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to renew the FL 3 Licence to the petitioner's Bar bearing Licence No.2/98-99.) 1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. One of the main contentions raised by Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the cancellation of the F.L.3 Licence issued to the petitioner, by the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 14.6.2012, is arbitrary and illegal. The reasons stated in the impugned order for the cancellation of the said Licence is that the petitioner Hotel had lost the star status and therefore, it is not entitled to such a Licence....
Tag this Judgment!S.Dakshina Vs. Chinnaponnu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(This Appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in A.S.No.42 of 2005 dated 21.11.2005, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukallukundram in O.S.No.284 of 1996 dated 28.01.2005.) This appeal is focussed at the instance of the original plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2005 passed in A.S.No.42 of 2005 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukallukundram in O.S.No.284 of 1996 dated 28.01.2005. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder 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 Second Appeal would run thus: (a) The appellant in the Second Appeal as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking the foll...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
(Prayer in W.P.No.8509 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Unscheduled Interchange Charges and Related Matters) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2012, contained in Notification No.1(1)/2011-CERC, dated 5.3.2012, as arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires the Constitution of India and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.8510 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Electricity Regulatory Commission (Indian Electricity Grid Code) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2012, contained in Notification No.1/18/2010-CERC, dated 5.3.2012, as arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires the Constitution of India and quash the same.) 1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »