Chennai Court September 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.
N.Rajendran Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:3. 9-2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.Nos.40964 and 40965 of 2002 W.P.No.40964 of 2002 N.Rajendran ... Petitioner Versus 1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep. By its Superintending Engineer Nagapattinam Electricity Distribution Circle Nagapattinam.2. V.Subbu 3.S.Govindarajan 4. P.Balasubramanian 5. N.Cholan 6. S.Murugaiyan 7. R.Pethaiyan 8. A.Jegabarasathick 9. K.Leninkumar 10. V.Regunathan 11.A.Muniappan 12. S.Ramachandran 13.S.Manivelu ... Respondents W.P.No.40965 of 2002 N.Rajendran ... Petitioner Versus Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep. By its Superintending Engineer Nagapattinam Electricity Distribution Circle Nagapattinam. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition in W.P.No.40964 of 2002 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the concerned records from the 1st respondent quash the order of the 1st respondent bearing Memo No....
K.Rajamanickam Vs. S.Valli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :03. 09.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A. No.1525 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 1.K.Rajamanickam 2.R.Sulochana .. Appellants Vs. S.Valli W/o.Shanmugam .. Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(t) of CPC against the fair and decreetal orders dated 01.04.2010 passed in I.A.No.1250 of 2009 in O.S.No.207 of 2008 on the file of the Addl. District Court (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem. For Appellants : Mr.P.Mani For Respondent : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran JUDGMENT Notice before admission was given to the respondent and the respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the appellants and by Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran, learned counsel for the respondent are heard.2. The appellants 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The respondent Valli is none other than the sister of the first appellant Rajamanickam. The suit properties are admittedly the a...
Sundaresan Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :03. 09.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI Crl.R.C.No.756 of 2004 Sundaresan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Deputy Superintendent of Police, PCR, Wing, Dharmapuri. Cr.No.14/99. 2.Nagaraj 3.Nagarani .. Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 30.01.2004 made in S.C.No.101 of 2002 on the file of the Special Court, Constituted under Prevention of SC & ST Atrocities Act, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu. For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, GA(crl.side) for R1. Mr.R.Sevakumar for R2 & R3. ORDER The criminal revision is filed against the order of acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 in SC.No.101 of 2002.2. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant, who set the law in motion by lodging the complaint against the respond...
M.Badrinarayanan Vs. Anandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:03. 09.2013 Coram THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.840 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 M.Badrinarayanan ... Revision Petitioner/Intervener -Vs.- 1. Anandan 2. State by Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation Unit D-6, Anna Square Police Station Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents Revision filed under Section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C praying to (i) Call for the records of the case from the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.5113 of 2012 in C.C.No.1926 of 2012 dated 17.04.2013. (ii) Examine the legality, priority and correctness of the proceedings before the lower Court and also of the findings contained in the impugned judgment. (iii) Set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.5113 of 2012 in C.C.No.1926 of 2012 on 17.04.2013 by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and permit the petitioner to engage an advocate to intervene and cross examine. For Appellant : Mr.C.A.Theagarajan For Resp...
K.Kuberan Vs. Management of Express Publications
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:3. 9.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.8886 of 2006 K.Kuberan .. Petitioner vs.1. The Management of Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., Chennai 2. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai 600 104 .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for all the records pertaining to passing of order dated 5.5.2004 in Approval petition No.2 of 1999 on the file of the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent/Management to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. For petitioner : Mr.G.Justin For respondent : Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan for R1 ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the order of approval granted by the second respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in discharging the peti...
The Manager, Shriram Chit Private Ltd. and Others Vs. Sasi Traders, Re ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2013
(The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction against the opposite parties to repay the deducted amount of Rs.1,96,066/-with interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for hardship, loss and to pay Rs.5000/- as costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order this appeal preferred by the Appellants / opposite parties praying to setaside the order passed by the District Forum in CC.No.63/2005 dated 12.08.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.8.2013, upon hearing the arguments 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, Presiding Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The Respondent / complainant enrolled for the chit group in Chit.No.189/03 with the 3rd opposite party for the monthly subscription of Rs.20,00...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›