Chennai Court January 2013 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.
R.Raja Jenish Vs. Secretary of Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24. 01.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.23178 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 R.Raja Jenish .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Post Bag No.3, Pennalur, Sriperumbudur-602 105. 2.Secretary & Registrar, Sri Venkateswara Educational and Health Trust, No.1/3A, River View Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. 3.The Commissioner Technical Education, Member (ex-officio), Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025. 4.B.Jayalakshmi, M.E., Assistant Professor, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Post Bag No.3, Pennalur, Sriperumbudur-602105. 5.K.Janani, M.E., Assistant Professor, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Post Bag No.3, Pennalur, Sriperumbudur-602 105. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining t...
R.T.Murugesan Vs. Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24. 01.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHA W.P.No.3926/2011 R.T.Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government Agriculture Production Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture Chepauk, Chennai 5. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in GO [3D] No.196 Agri VN17 Department dated 16.11.2010 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a reasonable time. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani, SC for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.D.Venkatachalam,GA ORDER The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent dated 16.11.2010 in GO [3D] No.196 Agri VN 1.Department, dismissing the petitio...
K.Gowran Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24. 01.2013 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.14977, 15614 to 15616 of 2011 and W.P.NO.1231 OF 201.1. K.Gowran 2. P.M.Chinnasamy .. Petitioners in W.P.NO.14977/2011 A.Kulandaisamy .. Petitioner in W.P.NO.15614/2011 V.Ramasamy .. Petitioner in W.P.NO.15615/2011 C.Rajendran .. Petitioner in W.P.NO.15616/2011 B.Kalaivani .. Petitioner in W.P.NO.1231/2013 Vs.1. The State of Tamilnadu rep.by the Secretary Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Director Department of Sericulture Annaimedu Salem 3. The Assistant Director Sericulture Department Dharmapuri 4. The Assistant Director Sericulture Department Pennagaram .. Respondents in W.P.NO.14977/2011 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep.by the Secretary Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Director Department of Sericulture Annaimedu Salem 3. The Assistant Director Sericulture Department Tiruch...
T.R.Murugan Vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated :24. 1.2013 Coram : The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice R.KARUPPIAH Writ Petition No.17530 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 o1. Mr.T.R.Murugan 2.Mr.T.R.Srinivasan .. Petitioners Vs 1.Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd., (HUDCO), Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3 rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director through Regional Chief, HUDCO Regional Office, 5th Floor, Thalamuthu Natarajan Buildings, Egmore, Chennai-8. 2.The Office of the Official Assignee Hon'ble Madras High Court, Chennai-102. (R2 impleaded as per order dated 13.7.2012 by DMJ and KKSJ in MP.NO.2 of 2012) .. Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to Section 13(4) Possession Notice (HUDCO/CRO/TLV Builders/ 14638/1061) dated 30.5.2012, which is received by the petitioners on 31.5.2012 and quash the same. For Petitione...
P.R.Krishnan Vs. T.Ruby Christie
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24. 01/2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA A.No.3916 of 2012 in C.S.No.424 of 2012 P.R.Krishnan vs. T.Ruby Christie FOR PETITIONER : K.Ramu FOR RESPONDENT : V.G.Suresh ORDER: VINOD K. SHARMA,J., The applicants / defendants 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 23 have filed this application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of plaint as against applicants, on the plea, that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against applicants/defendants.2. The plaintiff/non applicant has filed suit for recovery of Rs.36,07,500/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of plaint till realization against defendant no.1.3. The prayer is also for permanent injunction, restraining defendant no.1 from in any manner effecting construction or developing the plaint schedule property and handing ove...
Thirumalai Vs. Kamaraj Memorial Edu Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24. 01/2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA A.No.4762 of 2012 in C.S.No.868 of 2009 Thirumalai vs. Kamaraj Memorial Edu Trust FOR PETITIONER : A.Chidambaram FOR RESPONDENT : Sai Bharath ORDER: VINOD K. SHARMA,J.The plaintiff/non applicant has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.25,58,950/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) against defendant no.1, on the ground that they had some real estate dealing commencing from 10.01.2008 onwards. The plaintiff/respondent has been making payment to defendant no.1 by way of cash and through cheques over a period of time till July, 2008.2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that till July 2008, defendant no.1 was paid a sum of Rs.72,04,250/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Four Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only).3. It is pleaded case of the plaintiff/non applicant, that defendant no.1 executed certain sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff/non applicant f...
Kondi Vs. Sellamuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :24. 01.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE S.VIMALA Second Appeal Nos.795 and 1057 o1. Kondi, S/o.Chithan ... 1st appellant in S.A.No.795 o2. Periasamy, S/o.Chithan ... 2nd appellant in S.A.No.795 o3. Duraisamy, S/o.Chithan ... 3rd appellant in S.A.No.795 o4. Rajendran, S/o.Chithan ... 4th appellant in S.A.No.795 o5. Chitambalam, S/o. Kondi ... 5th appellant in S.A.No.795 o1. Kondi, S/o.Ramasamy ... Sole appellant in S.A.No.1057 of 1999 Vs.1. Sellamuthu, S/o. Periyan ... 1st respondent in both the S.As.2. Krishnan, S/o. Kalimuthu ... 2nd respondent in both the S.As.3. Kalimuthu, S/o.Krishnan ... 3rd respondent in S.A.No.795 o4. Ramalingam, S/o.Krishnan ... 4th respondent in S.A.No.795 o5. Chellammal, D/o.Krishnan ... 5th respondent in S.A.No.795 of 1999 Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgments and decrees, in A.S.Nos.54 and 52 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Attur, both dat...
Bharathan Films Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax Department
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24. 1.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.1992 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 Bharathan Films, represented by its Proprietor, R.Viswanathan, S/o B.Rathinam, having office at Guru Residency, Plot No.144, 8/9 G1 & G2 Bharathiar Street, Kaveri Nagar, Saligramam, Chenna093. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Chepauk, Chennai. 2.The Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. .. Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records and quash the G.O.(D)No.86 Commercial Tax and Registration Department dated 5.3.2012 passed by the second respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raman Laal For Respondents : Mr.A.R.Jayaprathap, Government Advocate (Tax). ----- O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records and quash ...
Haridas Purushothamas Vs. Jr Engg Cmwssb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24. 1.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.Nos.21119, 32710, 34202, 42003 and 43000 of 2002; 7528 to 7533, 8491, 8516, 9693, 11129, 19966, 29715, 29716, 30036, 38226, 38301, 38302 and 38303 of 2003; 4614, 12242, 15832, 17855, 22393, 22529, 22530, 23472, 23517, 23797, 23908, 23909, 24104, 24158, 24189, 24190, 24191, 24238, 24323, 24378, 24679, 26685, 27647, 27648, 28128, 28129, 28131, 28132, 28677, 29632, 29633, 29814, 29815, 32477 and 33794 of 2004; 7468, 8142, 8944, 20665, 20698, 21278, 21319, 21320, 21336, 21807, 22093, 22094, 23225, 23277, 23300, 23755, 24185, 24230, 24814 to 24816, 25161, 25162, 25215 to 25218, 25391 to 25393, 25628, 27215, 27943, 28021 to 28024, 28137, 28143, 28213, 28332, 28752, 28932, 29143, 29162, 29246, 29247, 29649 to 29653, 30083, 30288, 31185, 31644, 31654, 31655, 31759 to 31762, 32132, 32203, 36334 and 37112 of 2005; 3081, 6847, 7507, 7613, 8090, 8635, 8868, 9013, 9444, 9454, 9472, 9473, 9623...
A. Antony Samy Vs. the Branch Manager, M/S. New India Assurance Co.Ltd ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
(The Appellant as the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- towards medi claim policy with 24% interest per annum and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District forum in CC.111/2005 dated 26.09.2007.) A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appellant availed a Mediclaim policy from the Respondent for the period from 30.8.2001 on payment of premium of Rs.914/- per annum and during the force of the policy he undergone treatment for heart ailment from 5.4.2002 to 16.4.2002 and claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the expenses incurred by him from the opposite party on the basis of Mediclaim policy which was repudiated by the opposite party stati...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »