Chennai Court January 2012 Judgments
City Corp Finance India Ltd., Asset Based Finance Sri Lakshmi Complex ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2012
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party, praying for a direction to pay Rs.4 lakhs as compensation, Rs.50000/- towards mental agony, and Rs.25000/- as cost. The District Forum allowec the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.8.9.2010 in CC.No.7/2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 05.01.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent/ complainant, availing the financial aid, from the opposite parties, had purchased a Tata Hitachi EX 110 Poclain, under hypothecation agreement dt.29.11.2003, by producing the original invoice, issued by the manufacturer, at the time of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeevan Alias Reghu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
1. The appellant Sanjeevan @ Reghu is the accused in S.C. No.156 of 2007, in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Sessions Division at Nagercoil. In this appeal, he challenges, his conviction under Sections 377 and 302 IPC and the sentences imposed upon him. 2. He stood charged under Sections 377, 302 and 201 IPC for having committed sodomy on the boy Legies, for having murdered him and for having concealed his dead body in order to screen himself from legal punishment. 3. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him as under: Sl.No. Conviction Sentence 1. S.377 IPC 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine Rs.15,000/-, in default, undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. S. 302 IPC Life Sentence and fine Rs.15,000/-, in default, one year simple imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge directed that the said sentences shall run concurrently and out of the total fine amount ordered payment of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to PW.1 Lawrence, the father of the de...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Tvl Gupta Iron and Steel Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
1. The above tax case revision petitions are filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai dated 26.7.2000 made in S.T.A.Nos.11 and 13 of 1998 for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1992-93 and raising the following substantial question of law:- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in affirming the allowance of second sales exemption in respect of 50% of the turnover ordered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) when there was no further evidence of movement of goods in addition to the fact that some dealers were non-existent and registration cancelled in respect of some dealers? 2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petitions are as follows. The respondent-Tvl.Gupta Iron & Steel Company are the dealers in iron and steel. For the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee reported Nil taxable turnover and total turnover of Rs.57,87,441.69. Their place of business wa...
Tag this Judgment!B.Ranganathan and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
1. These Habeas Corpus Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the detenus, who are petitioners herein, challenging the impugned orders of detention dated 08.08.2011 on the allegation that the petitioners are “Slum Grabbers” within the meaning of 2(h) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982)(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The detention orders were passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, who is shown as first respondent in HCP.No.1133 of 2011 and second respondent in HCP.No.1134 of 2011. The orders of detention which were passed on 08.08.2011, even though have been challenged by the petitioners on various grounds like: (a) that the petitioners cannot be termed as “Slum Grabbers”; (b) that decision has been arrived at under the impugned deten...
Tag this Judgment!A.Kaliaperumal Vs. the Disciplinary Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.V.Srinivasan, learned cousnel for M/s.N.V.S. Associates for the respondent Bank. 2.In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the charge memorandum, dated 13.4.2009. The writ petition was admitted on 23.7.2009. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted an interim stay. In that order, the reason for granting interim stay was recorded as follows: In view of the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned charge memo is flimsy and vague and also considering that for the alleged allegations mentioned in the impugned charge memo, there is no annexures or any materials to the effect that the petitioner is responsible for sending the telegrams, this court is constrained to grant the relief of interim stay. 3.Aggrieved by the grant of stay, the respondent Bank has filed M.P.No.3 of 2009 for vacating the interim stay together with supporting a...
Tag this Judgment!K.Anbalagan Vs. the Deputy General Manager and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order passed by the respondent bank imposing compulsory retirement, dated 28.2.2009 on the petitioner. 2.In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 2.9.2009. Subsequently, it was admitted on 09.12.2010. The applications for interim stay as well as for direction were dismissed on the same day. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 25.11.2009. 3.The case of the petitioner was that he joined as a Probationary officer in the respondent bank in the year 1983. He served in various branches all over India. During his service, he also got appreciation from the bank. The last office held by him was the post of Senior Manager. He had completed 25 years of continuous service. During the year 1998, he had undergone an Open Heart Surgery for Mitral Valve Replacement at Madras Medical Mission Hospital, Chennai. Subsequent to the operation, he had to take regular follow ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Iyer and Another Vs. the Post Master General, Department of ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-2012
(The respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay the deposit amount of Rs.96,000/- each with 18% interest from the date of maturity dated 19.7.2005 to each of the complainants, to pay Rs.10 lakhs as compensation and to pay the costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties, against the said order, this appeal is preferred for enhancement and praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.26.09.2008 in C.C.85/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.01.2012, 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 complainants in C.C.85/2007 on the file of the District Forum, Krishnagiri, dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, in not granting compensation as pray...
Tag this Judgment!P.R.Vijayakumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
The petitioner is running a private aided School, which is a Middle School at Punniyam in Pallipat Taluk, Tiruvallore District. In this Writ Petition, strangely he seeks for a direction to the respondent State not to upgrade the Panchayat Union Primary School at Nallavanampettai situated in the same Panchayat as a Middle School. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 30.5.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim injunction. 3. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the petitioner School was started in the year 1958 as a Primary School and was upgraded as a Middle School in the year 1981 and it caters to the poor and needy children for several years and therefore if the present Panchayat Union Primary School which was started in the year 2003 which is less than one Kilometer from the petitioner's School is upgraded, it will create unnecessary complications. According to the petitioner, as per the Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Service Rules framed under the...
Tag this Judgment!M.ismayil Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-2012
1. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) has taken notice on behalf of the respondent/Police. The Criminal Revision Case can be disposed of on a short point of interpretation of law and hence, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case at the stage of admission itself, after hearing both sides and upon perusing the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate and the connected papers produced by the petitioner in the form of typed-set of papers. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) also concedes that the Criminal Revision Case can be disposed of in the manner pointed out above. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Cr.No.396 of 2011, registered on the file of the Airport Police Station, Trichy, for alleged offences under Section 419 and 420 IPC. Besides arresting the petitioner/accused in the said case, the respondent/Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Trichy also seized his passport bearing Passport Number H 8841154 an...
Tag this Judgment!P. Bhaskar Naidu, Ceo Vs. Cc, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-2012
1. Heard both sides. 2. In this appeal the challenge is to imposition of penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the appellant, hence, the same is taken up for hearing and disposal by the Single Member Bench as permitted under the law vide Section 129C (4) of the Customs Act, 1962, though initially it was listed before the Division Bench for hearing of the stay petition. This case was booked by the customs authorities based on intelligence that ‘Red Sander logs’, prohibited for export under the Foreign Trade Policy, were being smuggled out of India. The Customs officers of the Docks Intelligence Unit (DIU) identified a 20 - container TEXU 2338038, which was entered for export under Shipping Bill No. 2124658 dated 06.08.2005 filed in the name of M/s. Archana Exports. Investigations revealed that Smt. Vidyavathi Naidu is the Proprietrix of M/s. Archana Exports. However, in her statement dated 14.09.05, she stated that though she is the proprietrix of her company, she is not conversant with...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »