Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Al Vadivelu Vs. -

Court: Chennai

(Petition filed under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement and Revival.) The petition is filed under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act for approval of the Scheme of arrangement and revival of MCC Finance Ltd (in liquidation). The petitioner is none else than one of the directors of the company prior to the order of liquidation. 2. The facts made available herein would reveal that the company originally carried on business of non banking finance activities and also other businesses mentioned in its Memorandum of Association such as, merchant banking services, lease of properties, financial and investment advisory services, share registry work etc. The company, during 1998 to 2000 faced serious financial liquidity problem, due to various reasons set out in para 5 at page 3 of the petition, resulting in its inability to make repayment to fixed deposit, bond and hundi holders and to various banking, financial institution and indi...

Digvijay Export, Represented by Its Partner S. Radhey Shyam Rathi Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondent to assess Bill of Entry No 7865598 dated 05.09.2012, filed by the petitioner by allowing exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 as per Final Order Nos.941, 942 and 1109 of 2008 dated August 28, 2008 and September 29, 2008 and allow clearance of the subject goods in this writ petition as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to assess Bill of Entry No 7865598 dated 05.09.2012, filed by the petitioner by allowing exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 as per Final Order Nos.941, 942 and 1109 of 2008 dated August 28, 2008 and September 29, 2008 an...

Sri Ram Trading Company, Represented by Its Proprietor and Another Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayers: W.P.No.27944 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the respondent in CST NO.781373/2008-09 dated 15.11.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to consider the declarations in form 'C' and pass order afresh in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in W.P.No.25160 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012 dated 25.09.2012 (Tvl.KPM Rameetha Sago Factory, Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Attur (Rural) Assessment Circle, Attur). W.P.No.27945 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the respondent in CST NO.781373/07-08 dated 15.11.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to consider the declarations in form 'C' and pass order afresh in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in W.P.No...

Srihar Nagarajan Vs. the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Develo ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the first respondent not to accord any sanction in respect of the plan submitted by the second respondent without providing 40' Road to have access to the petitioner's property situated in Survey Nos.71/4, 76/4, 50/1B, 51/1B to 51/1F, 74/3D, 44/1B, totalling an extent of 139.5 cents as well as the installation of sewerage treatment plant in front of one of the petitioner's property situated in Survey No.76/4.) Heard Mr.R.Vijayaraghaven, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.Durairajan, learned counsel appearing for M/s.Surana & Surana, for the second and third respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to forbear the first respondents from according any sanction in respect of the plan submitted by the second respondent without providing 40' Road to have access to the petitio...

Narendra Prasad and Others Vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Priv ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Civil)561

(A.No.2006 of 2012 is preferred to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit. A.No.2007 of 2012 is preferred to recall the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit. A.No.2008 of 2012 is preferred to permit the applicants / plaintiffs to mark the documents as annexed in the application) COMMON ORDER These three applications were filed by the applicants, who are plaintiffs in the suit in C.S.No.410 of 1982. The suit is for the grant of declaration that the suit properties are the properties held in the trust for the benefit of the plaintiffs by the first defendant and that he had no right to alienate the same and that defendants 2 to 23 have no right or title or interest upon the suit properties and also for several other reliefs. 2. The written statements were filed and issues were framed as early as on 30.10.1986. Subsequently, the suit was tried and the trial commenced from March 1996. The evidence was completed during November, 1996.The argument...

R. Balakrishnan and Others Vs. the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissio ...

Court: Chennai

(W.P.No.34957 of 2006 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the D.O.Letter No.44129/2/98 dated 20.08.1988 sent from the Secretary to 2nd respondent addressed to the chairman of the 1st respondent Department available on the file of 2nd respondent and also pertaining to the impugned select list of candidates prepared by the first respondent for to be appointed as Asst. Engineers of Highways Dept. and approved by the 2nd respondent in G.O.Ms.No.104 Highways (HK1) Dept. dated 19.6.2000 in so far as assigning higher ranks to candidate or candidates belonging to a particular sex and particular class of Backward class who scored lesser marks than the candidate to candidates of same sex and same class of Backward class who scored higher marks and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to prepare the revised list of candidates to be appointed as Assistant Engineers for the y...

M. Diwakar Vs. State Level Scrutiny Committee, Rep.by the Chairman and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ584; 2013(1)CWC331

(Review Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 r/w.Section 114 CPC, as against the judgment of this Court dated 20.4.2009 rendered in W.A.No.897 of 2007.) ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The question to be decided by us in this Review Application is 'whether or not a Writ Appeal would lie against the order passed by a learned single Judge in a writ petition, which was filed challenging the orders of the State Level Scrutiny Committee (pertaining to the community status of Scheduled Tribes)' 2. To answer the above legal question, a brief background of the case has to be narrated. 3. The petitioner filed an application before the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem on 7.11.1997 for issuance of a Scheduled Tribe Community certificate that he belongs to 'Kurumans' community. The said application was rejected by the second respondent on 11.9.1998, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.14578 of 1998 before this Court. The petitioner was provisio...

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by Its Assistant General ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Third Respondent relating to the New Assessment No.20242 dated 09.09.2011 and served on the Petitioner on 09.03.2012 in respect of SDO Office, BSNL, Salem and quash the same. Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Third Respondent relating to the New Assessment Nos.30002 and 30003 dated 07.06.2012 and served on 16.06.2012 in reference No.L13/1105/2003 in respect of Telephone Exchange and Staff Quarters, BSNL Poonammapet, Salem and quash the same. Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Third Respondent relating to the Impugned Order dated 24.05.2012 in reference No.K12/4590/2001 in respect of Microwave Building, Jagir Reddipatty, Salem-63...

S.Jagadeeshan Vs. the District Collector, Tiruppur District and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate proceedings against the 8th respondent and not to permit the 8th respondent to proceed with the construction of the school/hostel building in Survey No.426 situated at Neruperichal Village, Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur District within 300 Mts. from the petitioner's rough stone quarry comprised in R.S.No.89/1 measuring an extent of 1.58.0 Hec., and R.S.No.89/2B1 measuring an extent of 0.40.5 Hec., both totally measuring an extent of 2.08.0 Hec., situated at Agrahara Periapalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District.) ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to initiate appropriate proceedings against the 8th respondent and to restrain the said respondent from proceeding with the construction of the school and th...

G. Padmanapan Vs. K. Rajesh

Court: Chennai

(Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for having willfully disobeyed the direction given by this Hon'ble Court in Crl.O.P.No.3616 of 2012 on 16.03.2012 and punish him under the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.) This contempt petition arose out of an order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3616 of 2012 dated 16.03.2012. Notice was issued to the respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor circulated a counter affidavit filed by the respondent. 2. The original criminal petition arose under the following circumstances:- The Dina Malar, a Tamil newspaper published a news item in its edition dated 29.01.2012. If translated freely it had the following caption:- "Vanniyars are becoming Goundars" - To increase their life style yet another idea! In the news item, it was stated that in the northern districts of Tamil Nadu, Vanniyars have a vote bank. In the Namakkal district, the Vanniyars are calling themselves as Nattu ...