Chennai Court November 2011 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.
Ms.Rose Flower Company (Papers) Pvt Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. The present petitioner is an assesse paying property tax to the Sivakasi Municipality. When challenging the issuance of notices claiming enhanced tax, the petitioner filed various Writ petitions. Those Writ petitions were not entertained by this Court on the ground that the petitioner must avail the remedy by way of filing an appeal to the Taxation Appellate Committee placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in Razeena Begum and another Vs. Pudukkottai Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Pudukkottai reported in 2009(1) MLJ 42. Following the same, the learned Judge dismissed the Writ petition.2.The original Writ petitioner has filed the present Review applications contending the direction to go before the Taxation Appellate Committee was erroneous. Since it were a special notices issued by the Municipality, it must contain reasons and the notices itself were illegal in view of the decision of the earlier Division Bench in 1995(2) MLJ 43the Review came to be filed. It...
Rukmani. Vs. T.Painthamil Kumaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. This Appeal Suit is focussed by the defendants 1 to 3 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2007 made in O.S.No.39 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Shorn and bereft of details, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Appeal Suit would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit as against the defendants, who are the legal heirs of the original borrower for a sum of Rs.5,85,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Eighty Five Thousand only) based on the promissory note executed by the said deceased.4. The defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement, which would pithily and concisely speak to the effect that their propositus did not execute any promissory note and he did not also borrow any money, much less the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the plaintiff as a...
Santhanam Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. The petitioner is the father of one S.Valarmathi, aged 21 years. She was found missing from 1.8.2011. In this regard, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the second respondent. Alleging that she was illegally detained by the third respondent, the petitioner has come up with this Hebeas Corpus Petition.2. Today, the second respondent has produced the detenu before this Court. On enquiry, she would state that she has completed 20 years of age and she is a B.Sc., graduate. She would further submit that she has married the third respondent; she is living with him very happily and that her parents have also accepted the said marriage and they have no objection for her living with the third respondent.3. The petitioner and his wife are also present before this Court. On enquiry, they would also state that they have no objection for the detenu to live with the third respondent as his wife and they have accepted the said marriage whole-heartedly.4. In view of the same, nothing survives ...
M/S. Kola Saraswathy Maternity Hospital Vs. Elumalai and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship due to deficiency in service 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 dt.18.01.2010 in C.C.192/2000. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.10.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The first opposite party in C.C.192/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North], having suffered an adverse order dated 18.01.2010, challenges the same in this appeal on various grounds. 2. Factual matrix: The complainants/...
Thirumangalam Agricultural Producers Co.Op Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 6/7/2005 in A.S.No.213 of 2004 passed by the learned First Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 5/1/2004 in O.S.No.10 of 2002 passed by the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam.2. THE PLAINT SCENARIO:- The Appellant/Plaintiff/Society is engaged in marketing the consumer items like sugar, wheat, rice etc., and also ginning cotton and decorticating the ground nut. The farmers used to bring cotton and ground nut for ginning and decorticating purposes and the Appellant/Plaintiff/Society would do the job on receiving the conversion charges only according to the quantity brought by the farmers. Earlier, practically, there has been no competition for ginning the cotton. As such the Appellant/Plaintiff/Society would invariably received large quantities of cotton and ground nuts being brought by the farmers. At that time, there would be a full time funct...
S.Kajamohideen Vs. Tenkasi Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. The Appellant/Defendant has preferred this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.08.2005 in A.S.No.32 of 2005 passed by the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi.2. Plaint Facts:The suit schedule property belongs to the Respondent/Plaintiff/Municipality. The shop No.1 of suit schedule property and the other shops in Tenkasi new bus stand are to be let out in public auction and for enjoying the said shop from the date of possession till three years, the Respondent Municipality issued an auction notice dated 10.01.2000. The date of auction has been specified as 28.01.2000. The place of auction has been notified as the Tenkasi Municipality Office. Those who are desirous of bidding in the auction should deposit a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 27.01.2000 before 4.30p.m. in the Municipality Treasury Office and to obtain a token thereof. Only, the persons who deposited the amount will have to take part in the auction and also persons, who have Property Value Certificate...
John Premkumar Vs. T.Selvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
1. This Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2007, passed in A.S.No.21 of 2006 by the learned District Judge, Kaniyakumari at Nagercoil in confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2005, passed in O.S.No.5 of 2005 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Shorn and bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the Second Appeal would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) based on the cheque No.621787, drawn on State Bank of India, Nagercoil, dated 05.04.2004, issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, in consideration of the the defendant having received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). Subsequently, according to the plaintif...
Dtdc Courier and Cargo Ltd., Through the Managing Director, Bangalore ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 20.10.2011, upon hearing the arguments of Appellants side and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- ) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Respondent/Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party for non delivery of courier to the addressee in time and for returning the unserved letter with delay for direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for a loss of chance to pursue the higher studies and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service and for costs. 3. Complainant sent an application for Siddha M.D., P.G.Course on 24.4.08 to the Secretary, Selection Committee Directorate of Indian Medicine, Chennai 106 for which the last date was on 30.4.08 and the scheduled entrance examination was on 10.5.08 through the 2nd opposite party on payment of charges by courier. T...
Ms.Empire Exports Vs. the Additional Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. The appellant herein has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 10.08.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.8947 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the proceedings, dated 21.04.2011, issued by the second respondent with the prayer to quash the same and consequential relief of directing the respondents to release the consignment of split and whole betel nuts under bill of lading No.MGL/TUTP101388, filed in Bill of Entry No.2371179, dated 29.11.2010, with the office of the respondents and issue detention certificate waiving the demurrage, rent and detention charges in terms of regulation 6(1) of the Handling of Cargo Customs areas Regulation, 2009.2. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the writ petition was dismissed only on the ground of maintainability to the effect that the appellant challenged the show cause notice. It is contended that the appellant can ve...
V.Sankaran Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2011
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the first and second respondents to produce the petitioner's wife, namely, Alageswari, aged about 30 years, before this Court, and to set her at liberty.2. The petitioner has stated that the detenue has been illegally detained by the third respondent. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first and the second respondents submits that the detenue has eloped with the third respondent and a woman missing case had been registered, in Crime No.8 of 2011, on the file of the Thirupparankundram Police Station. The detenue had been produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, and she had been set at liberty and the case was closed as action dropped . Thereafter, the petitioner had given a complaint before the Valliyoor Police Station. However, no case had been registered, by the second respondent- Police, till date.3. In the counter affidavit filed...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »