Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Subbaraj Vs. S. Rajendran

Court: Chennai

1. This application is filed by the applicant seeking to revoke the grant of the Probate of the Will left by late S.Sulochana made in O.P.No.341 of 2010, dated 09.07.2010. On notice, on behalf of the respondent, a counter affidavit, dated 19.7.2012 has been filed by her father and guardian S.Rajendran. 2. The applicant is a third party to the original proceedings. The O.P was filed by the respondent seeking for the grant of probate in respect of the last will, dated 7.2.2007 left by late S.Sulochana. The O.P was admitted on 15.4.2010. The notice was affixed in the court notice board. The succession duty of Rs.6000/- was paid. The notice was also sent to the District Collector. When the matter came up on 25.6.2010, it was directed to be posted before the learned Master for recording evidence. Before the learned Master, the original petitioner examined himself as P.W.1. He also examined one G.Jayaraman as P.W.2 being an attesting witness. It was thereafter, this court by an order dated 0...

Selva Murthy Vs. the District Collector, Thiruvallur District and Othe ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent herein to shift the TASMAC Shop No.9197 to the premises situated in Survey No.122/2 at NO.86, Venkateswarapuram, Pakam Village, Thiruvallur District and to accommodate the petitioner to run the bar for the balance period of license, pursuant to representation dated 13.10.2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the third respondent, with regard to the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition and if the third respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits, within a specified period, as fixed by this Court. 3. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such a...

N. Balraj Vs. M. Ponnusamy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)726

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call fore the records and set-aside the order, confirming the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and also directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent / complainant herein passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam in C.C.No.459 of 2000, dated 28.03.2005, by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.155 of 2005, dated 26.06.2007.) 1. The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1041 of 2007, against the judgment made in C.A.No.155 of 2005, on the file of Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.459 of 2000, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant on 05.08.19...

A. Lalitha, B.T.Assistant Brittania High School Vs. the State of Tamil ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the Government Order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.54, School Education (D2) Department, dated 3.9.2002, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent authorities 1 to 3 to accord promotion to the petitioner as B.T.Assistant with effect from 7.10.1991 with all attendant Service benefits like backwages, continuity of service, Seniority, perquisites etc.) ORDER 1. The present writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner-Tmt.A.Lalitha against the impugned order passed by the first respondent-the Secretary to Government, School Education (D2) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 in G.O.(2D) No.54, School Education (D2) Department, dated 3.9.2002 to quash the same with the consequential direction to the respondent authorities 1 to 3 to accord promotion to the petitioner...

Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager and Another Vs. the Regist ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1266 of 2010 dated 01.3.2011 and quash the same.) Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. Southern Railway, represented by its General Manager and three other Officers, has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 01.3.2011 in O.A. No. 1266 of 2010. 2. From the materials on records, it is seen that the second respondent while working as Health Inspector in the Medical Department of Southern Railway, was convicted in a Criminal Case for having accepted illegal gratification. In such circumstance, the Chief Medical Superintendent, by proceedings dated 13.10.2010 issued a Memo indicating the proposal to dismiss him from services giving him 15 days time for submitting his representation, if any. The said proceedings was impugned before the Central ...

M/S. Ags Transact Technologies Ltd. Represented by Its Regional Manage ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Goods Detention Notice No.119/2012-13 dated 02.10.2012 and also the consequential Revised Good Detention Notice No.119/2012-13 dated 12.10.2012 issued by the respondent and quash the same and to further direct the Respondent to release the goods detained by him.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for Taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed: i) The petitioner shall pay the amount of tax of Rs.2,16,050/-, which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority conce...

Mrs. M. Manjula Vs. Mrs. Jothi Udaykumar and Others

Court: Chennai

1. The applicant in these two applications seeks for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted by this court, dated 4.4.2005 in favour of the first respondent in O.P.No.440 of 2004 and for directing the first respondent to deposit the original letters of administration, dated 30.6.2005. 2. Notice was ordered in these applications. On notice, a common counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent, dated Nil (January, 2012) and a common counter affidavit, dated Nil (February, 2012) was filed by the second respondent. A counter affidavit was also filed by the third respondent in A.No.5952 of 2011. The applicant has filed a reply affidavit, dated 10.8.2012. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.Karthik Mukundan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.S.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel of M/s.Span Associates for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Y.N.Venkat Raj, learned counsel for the third respondent. 4. It is the case of the applicant t...

M/S. Futura Polyesters Limited Represented by Authorised Signatory R. ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in his proceeding No.CST/49999/2007-08 and quash the order, dated 21.9.2012 and direct the respondent to pass orders on the rectification petition, dated 10.10.2012.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the Rectification Petition submitted by the petitioner, dated 10.10.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 4. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to consider the Rectification Petition, da...

M. Subramanian Vs. the Transport Commissioner Ezhilagam, Chepauk

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent and all officers subordinate him to accept tax for seven days or 30 days or the entire quarter as and when voluntarily tendered by the petitioner in advance anywhere in the state of Tamil Nadu in respect of the petitioner's vehicle KA-21-8615 to ply in Tamil Nadu Roads without obstruction.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the issues involved in this writ petition are covered by the order of this Court, dated 24.4.2007 made in W.P.Nos.15061 to 15063 of 2007, and the order , dated 27.04.2011, passed in W.P.No.11095 of 2011, wherein, this Court had directed the respondents therein to receive the tax, as and when it is voluntarily tende...

M/S. Foods Fats and Fertilizers Ltd., Rep. by Its Power Agent, Sundar ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to enhance the sentence of imprisonment and compensation passed by the judgment dated 05.04.2005 and made in C.C.No.10274 of 2001, on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.) 1. The revision petitioner herein / complainant has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.753 of 2005, against the judgment made in C.C.No.10274 of 2001, on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, praying to enhance the sentence of simple imprisonment and compensation. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The complainant is a manufacturer and the wholesaler of cooking oils "Vanaspathi" and other allied products. During the course of business transactions, the accused had placed orders for the supply of refined rice brand oil and the complainant supplied the same to the accused for a total value of Rs.17,75,329/-. The accused failed and neglected to pay the above amount as pe...