Chennai Court March 2011 Judgments
Vaduguchetty Vs. S.P.Munusamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
JUDGEMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 30.4.2004 made in MCOP.No.222/2002 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate I (MACT) Krishnagiri, granting an award of Rs.56,000/- together with interest 9% p.a. as against the 1st Respondent/Owner and negativing the claim as against the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company.2. On 24.8.2001, at about 09.00 hours, when the Appellant/ claimant was proceeding in his bicycle in Dharmapuri to Salem NH Road and while coming opposite to Sri Ram Boarding Lodge, the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-29-A-2300 belonging to the 1st Respondent dashed against the claimant due to which he fell down from the cycle and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he had been taken to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and was treated as an inpatient. He sustained fracture and suffered disability and therefore, he claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.3. The 2nd Respondent Insurance Company resisted the claim by filing a counter co...
Tag this Judgment!New Bharat Enterprises Vs. Airports Authority of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
O R D E R1. Heard Mr.K. Doraisami, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The said writ petition is filed apprehending non settlement of the amount by the respondent, who is liable to refund the deposit amount of Rs.6,16,74,216/- made pursuant to the lease agreement and is likely to forfeit the amount. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.3. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of Airport Authority of India dated 13.1.2011, by which, the respondent has directed the petitioner to settle the amount of Rs.4,57,11,957/- immediately and also furnish a fresh Bank Guarantee valid for a period of three years for an amount of Rs.4.37 crores in respect of Service Tax arrears disputed and covered under the order passed by this Court in W.P No.45079 of 2006.4. Admittedly, the period of license has come to an end by 15.11.2010. As per ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandragiri Construction Company Vs. the Income-tax Settlement Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
COMMON ORDER1. The writ petition in W.P.No.3780 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner company challenging the notice issued by the Income-tax Settlement Commission viz., the first respondent dated 8.2.2010, while the writ petition in W.P.No.18871 of 2010 has been filed for a direction against the respondents to return the documents and share certificates seized during the search conducted on 21.6.2001 from the premises of the petitioner and also to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to submit its audited returns with the concerned Assessing Officer.2. The petitioner company is a Class-I contractor in the States of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Puducherry and income-tax assessee and it forms part of the group of firms and individuals totalling 12 in number, who are treated as a group of assessees under the Income-tax Act viz., (i)M/s.Chandragiri Construction Company,(ii)M/s.Chandragiri Construction Co.,(iii)M/s.Padhoor Plantations Private Limited,(iv)M/s.Hotel Periya...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.Dharman Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings, Na.Ka.No.2103/2009/A3 dated 25.2.2011, consequently published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 1.3.2011 that accompanied along with the proceedings Na.Ka.No.2103/2009/A3/A.D(P) dated 1.3.2011 and quash the same as arbitrary, unjustifiable, illegal ultra vires and colourable exercise of power.2. Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. Challenging the order of the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat and the consequent notification removing the petitioner from the post of President of the Village Panchayat, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 5.3.2011 to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Chennai-9. On the same breadth, the petitioner has filed this writ petition cha...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Redington India Ltd., Vs. P.Vijayakumar and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to supply a healthy handset of the same type, to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental agony and monetary loss, to pay Rs.4500/- being the cost of complaint. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 2nd opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore dated 26.04.2008 in C.C.No.353/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 02.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, 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 MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/1st opposite party filed a complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 for the direction...
Tag this Judgment!Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., and Others Vs. A. Palanisamy and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties 2 to 4 to return the H.P. termination papers and No Objection certificate of the Maruthi Zen Car bearing Regn.No.TN 38 E 4797, to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards depreciation of the value of car for 6 years with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards mental agony suffered and undergone by the complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties 2 to4. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 2 to 4, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore dated 3.12.2007 in C.C.No.233/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 03.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum...
Tag this Judgment!A.Shankar Vs. the Chief Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner herein seeks to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents-1 to 3 to initiate proper action immediately on the basis of his complaint dated 15.10.2010 as against the 4th respondent herein under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The petitioner herein, who is a suspended staff/Special Assistant of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) over a 'telephone tapping scandal', had submitted a complaint dated 15.10.2010 to the Government as well as the DVAC against the 4th respondent, who is an IPS Officer of 1988 Batch allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre. The crux of the allegation in the complaint is that the 4th respondent, who is holding the post of Joint Director, DVAC, and vested with the responsibility of ensuring probity in public life and a corrupt-free administration, is possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.10 crores. The details of immovable properties said to have been purchased through su...
Tag this Judgment!R.Natarajan Vs. the State Chief Election Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
ORDER1. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order and Decretal Order, dated 16.09.2009 made in E.O.P.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the Panchayat Election Court / District Court, Tiruvarur, declaring the third respondent as elected President of the Athichozhamangalam Village, Tiruvarur District, in the election held on 13.10.2006 as invalid and direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to re-count the votes polled in the president election for Athichozhamangalam Village and declare the result again.2. It is an admitted fact that on 13.10.2006, Panchayat election was conducted for electing election the President for Athichozhamangalam village Panchayat. The petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 herein had filed their nominations before the second respondent, Chief Election Officer / Block Development Officer, Koradacherry, Tiruvarur District and after the election was over, the votes were counted on 18.10.2006. The petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Ranjeeth Mishra Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents.2. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that investigations are being carried on, in respect of the import of the Second Hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines. Thereafter, adjudication proceedings would be held to find out if any irregularities had been committed in the import of such goods. While so, this Court may be pleased to release the goods, if it deems it fit to do so, on the petitioner depositing 40% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value. They had also submitted that the adjudication proceedings could be completed by the respondents, within a period of 15 days from the time of its commencement.3. In view of the several orders passed by this Court, directing the respondents to release the goods in question, on certain conditions, and as the submissions made by the learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Roopa Steam Calendaring Works and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Both the Writ Petitions are filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in his Circular Memo No.CE/Comml/EE/DSM/AEE1/F. Power cut/D.358/10 dated 17.9.2010 and the consequential quota letter issued by the third respondent in his letter No.SE/TEDC/TPR/HT/F.Quota/D.../10, dated 24.9.2010 and including the bills dated 1.2.2011 and 4.3.2011, seeking to levy penalty under Serial No.13(a) and (f) and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary without authority of law, against the order of the first respondent in M.P.No.6, 9, and 17 of 2010 dated 7.9.2010 and consequently direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to run their industry with 80% of their base demand and base energy of the third respondent along with additional demand and energy from the third party purchase, captive power plant and wind energy over and above the quota fixed by the third respondent.2. Sri R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned advocate appears fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »