Chennai Court January 2012 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.
H. and R. Johnson (India) Ltd. Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1496 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 2. The appellant is an industry involved in the manufacturing of ceramic tiles for use in domestic, commercial and industrial purposes. The Government of Pondicherry offers energy tariff subsidy for electricity consumption charges in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, in order to promote industrial development in the Union Territory. Under the Memorandum dated 11.2.1991, the Government of Pondicherry (Development Department (Industry)), for Karaikal Mahe Regions, all the new low tension and high tension industries which are energised on or after 1.3.1991, are eligible for power subsidy. In view of the said concession, the appellant decided to set up an industry for manufacture of ceramic tiles in the backward ar...
Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2012
This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff animadverting upon the order dated 09.07.2008 passed in I.A.No.874 of 2007 in O.S.No.76 of 2007 by the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: (a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: (i) For permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 above named by themselves, their servants, agents, distributors, stockist, dealers or anyone claiming through them from in nay manner infringing the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark CEFI XL or any other marks which are either similar or identical to the registered Trade Mark of the Plaintiff; (ii) For directing the defendants 1 and 2 above to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned by them through the sale of the p...
Arulmighu Muthukumarasamy Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
Animadverting upon the judgement and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, dated 16.7.2007 in LAOP No.1 of 2001, the land owner/land loser has filed this appeal. 2. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. A recounting and r'esume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government vide Notification dated 09.11.1995 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 2.43.0 acre in Survey No.59/1 in Pariyur Vellalapalayam, for the purpose of setting up an additional work-shop for the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.80,000/- per acre, based on Ex.P3-the sale deed dated 6.4.1994, which emerged anterior to the Section 4(1) Notification of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Being aggrieved by such award, ...
Vijayakumar Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
The sole accused in C.C.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kuzhithurai is the petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Case. A case was registered on the file of Kollencode Police Station as Crime No.216 of 2008 on the file of the said police station for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. On completion of investigation, the respondent submitted a final report alleging commission of the said offence on the part of the petitioner herein, who allegedly cheated several persons including one Shanthi, the defacto complainant, based on whose complaint the case was registered by the police. The said final report was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kuzhithurai in C.C.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the said Court. 2. On appearance, the sole accused, who is the petitioner herein submitted a petition seeking an order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was taken on file as Cr.M.P.No.864 of 20...
Union of India and ors. Vs. T.Chinnasamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 29.08.2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.307 of 2010, wherein the original application, which was filed by the first respondent herein challenging the letters dated 02.11.2009 and 10.12.2009 issued by the fourth petitioner herein thereby cancelling the pay fixed in favour of the first respondent as per office memorandum dated 22.07.2009 and rejecting his request for pensionary benefits on the basis of the fixation of pay in the promoted post, was allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to grant pension and other retiral benefits to the first respondent as per the orders of the Government of India in G.I., Department of Pen. & P.W., O.M.F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A), dated 11.12.2008, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2.It is the case of the petitioners that they never issued any alert notice for selection process to the first respondent, who...
D.Janaki Vs. S.Jayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred challenging the order and decreetal order dated 18.7.2011 passed in C.M.P.No.817 of 2011 in A.S.No.367 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. Heard Mrs.V.Yamunadevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Defendant is the revision petitioner. The suit O.S.No.3522 of 2007 was filed on 14.6.2007 for recovery of money lent on a promissory note. In the trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the promissory note dated 1.4.2006, Ex.A-2 is the Advocate notice issued by the plaintiff's counsel to the defendant and Ex.A-3 is the postal acknowledgment card of the defendant. On behalf of the revision petitioner/defendant, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked and they are not relevant for the present issue. At the instance of the plaintiff, the ...
Sumanlatha Mehta and ors. Vs. Dr.N.V.Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4134 of 2000 whereby the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has decreed the suit holding that Defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,72,500/- together with subsequent interest at the contracted rate of 36% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Unsuccessful Defendants are the Appellants. 2. Case of Plaintiff is as follows:- 1st Defendant is the Proprietrix of the Company M/s.S.B.A. Traders dealing with the trading of shares. At the invitation of Defendants, Plaintiff invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in 3rd Defendant's Company for which Ex.A1-agreement [30.06.1996] was entered into. As per Ex.A1-agreement, Defendants agreed to repay the said amount by investing the same for a period of 90 days, subject to a maximum period of 120 days which shall carry an interest of 36% per annum. In order to discharge the said liability of the Defendants, 1st Defendant issued...
The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M/S. Kumudam Printers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
These appeals are filed at the instance of the Revenue. As these appeals were admitted on the following common substantial questions of law, they are disposed of by this common judgment. “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in exempting the property at No.20, Hunters Road, Madras from the wealth tax, even though Section 40(3)(vi b) of the Finance Act, 1983 states if the property used by Director, Manager and Secretary as residential accommodation then it will not be exempt and the same will be included as taxable asset in the net wealth of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the property at door Nos.123 and 124 should not be included in the assessee's net wealth is valid?” 2. The assessee, apart from doing printing business, is also doing the business of leasing out the properties...
P. Rathinasabapathy Vs. P. Annamalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
The Appellant, (Legal Representative of the First Defendant before the First Appellate Court), has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.1994 in A.S.No.72 of 1986 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Kancheepuram in affirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No. 397 of 1983 dated 24.07.1986 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Kancheepuram. 2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Sub Judge, Kancheepuram, while delivering the Judgment in A.S.No.72 of 1986 dated 28.01.1994, has, among other things, observed that the Appellant's father, viz., deceased First Defendant, has not been examined before the trial Court as a witness and also opined that it has not been proved that the suit amount has not been obtained for the purpose of partnership business and moreover PW1, in his evidence, has deposed that he has lent the suit amount and accordingly, proved Ex.A1-Receipt dated 02.06.1980, and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with cost...
C.Shennakesavan and ors. Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2012
The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondent no.1 to 3 to absorb the petitioners as regular employee in the Board, as per order dated 09.05.2011 (A/2466/2010) issued by the 4th respondent, on the representation of the petitioners. 2.The petitioners are working as contract labourers in the office of the Junior Engineer, O & M, Santhur, under the control of the respondent no.3 since 1994-95. The petitioners were doing the works of erection of poles and street lights, H.T., L.T., works, Transformer structural works, dismandling and re-erection of poles. The case of the petitioners is that in view of the fact that the petitioners have put in number of years of service, and that the persons who had less experience and were juniors to the petitioners stood regularised by the Board, but relief of regularisation was denied to the petitioners. 3.The petitioners invoked provision 3 of the Tamil Nadu In...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »