Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

M/S. Sprint International, Rep. by Its Proprietor Vs. the Appellate De ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in S.P.NO.55/12 in VAT.AP.No.64/12, dated 03/10/2012 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to grant an absolute stay for the balance of tax and entire penalty amount without insisting upon furnishing of security in the form of Bank Guarantee till the pending disposal of the appeal on the files of the first respondent.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. 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 order of the first respondent, dated 03.10.2012, made in S.P.No.55 of 2012, in VAT.A.P.No.64 of 2012, is ...

M/S. Bellary Steels and Alloys Limited and Another Vs. T.V.S. Finance ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 27.02.2008 passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.Appeal No.136 of 2006, confirming the judgment passed by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.10220 of 1999, dated 04.05.2006, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.) ORDER The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The respondent herein / complainant had supplied spare parts to the revision petitioners herein / accused on credit basis. In order to discharge the said loan, the accused had issued a cheque dated 20.07.1999 for a sum of Rs.2,44,325/-, drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Residency Road Branch, Bangalore to and in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was presented in the complainant's bank, viz., HDFC Bank, Bangalore, for collection. The same was returned with an endorsement of "insufficiency of funds". Hence, th...

M/S. M.R.T. Oil Industries, Rep by Its Partner -eswarasamy, Pollachi V ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in W.P.No.26812 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to furnish all materials that reflect the petitioner's purchases of Copra from unregistered dealers inside this State relating to the assessment year 2010-2011 under TNVAT Act, 2006 as per the objection letter dated 25.9.2012. (Prayer in W.P.No.26813 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to furnish all materials that reflect the petitioner's purchases of Copra from unregistered dealers inside this State relating to the assessment year 2011-2012 as per the objection letter dated 25.9.2012.) Common Order: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. These Writ Petitions have been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue Writ...

Nachimuthu Gounder Vs. the District Collector, Tiruppur District and O ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to cancel the lease-hold quarrying rights of the respondents 7 to 9 in Survey Nos.86-1A, 89-3B and 89/1A and 89-1B1, in A.Periapalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Thirupur.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 had submitted that the lease granted in favour of respondents 7 and 8 for quarrying of rough stones in S.Nos.86-1A, 89-3B and 89/1A and 89-2B1 had expired on 8.7.2012. The request made by the said respondents for renewal of the lease in their favour had been rejected by the District Collector, Tiruppur, on 3.9.2012. 3. The said statements made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 had not been refuted by th...

R.A. Ranjit Singh Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Go ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in G.O.(ID)No.560, Housing and Urban Development HBI(1) Department dated 01.9.2004 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and issue consequential direction to pay all the petitioner’s attendant benefits to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging a penalty of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. 2. Heard Mr. R. Mohana Sundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. R. Jayaseelan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Board. 3. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.12.1976 and a charge memo dated 09.02.1977 was issued containing three imputations of misconduct. There was a corrigendum to the charge memo on 04.08.1977. Subsequently, one more imputation was included by a further memo dated 1...

Kathirvel Vs. the Managing Director, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Co ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.162 of 2004 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Chengalpet.) Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the injured in a road accident directed this appeal. 2. On 16.03.2002, the appellant had sustained injury in a road accident. It is because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent. For this, the Tribunal awarded him Rs.28,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that P.W.2 Doctor found that the appellant was having 45% disability. However, without properly appreciating the medical evidence, the Tribunal awarded him very less compensation. The learned counsel further contended that under all the heads only token compensation has been given. He would further contend that the appellant had spent considerably for making to and fro trips between his house and the hospital, yet no amount has been granted for transpor...

G. Govindaraj Vs. the Chairman, Tasmac and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to act upon the petitioner's representation dated 03.08.2012, within the time frame fixed by this Court. ) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had visited a TASMAC Shop, on 11.09.2011, along with his friend. They had purchased two beer bottles of 'Bullet' brand. The petitioner was shocked to find foreign particles inside the beer bottle, which is manufactured by the fourth respondent and is owned by the fifth respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had fallen ill and he had been mentally upset for having had the beer from the bottle, which contained certain foreign particles. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred a representation, dated 03.08.2012, to the first and ...

R. Shankar Vs. S. Manogari

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ671; 2013AIR(NOC)82; 2013(2)LW503

(Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2012 of the learned I Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed in A.S.No.239 of 2010, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 of the learned XII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed in O.S.No.2788 of 2009.) This second appeal has been preferred against the decree of the learned First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 06.07.2012 made in A.S.No.239 of 2010 by which the decree passed by the trial Court, namely the 12th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 22.12.2009 made in O.S.No.2788 of 2009 was confirmed. The defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. He has knocked at the doors of this Court after suffering a decree in the original suit and after unsuccessfully prosecuting an appeal before the lower appellate Court. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for the relief of specific performance based on the su...

Nachiammal (Deceased) Lrs. and Others Vs. Kuppulakshmi and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ213; 2012(3)MWN(Civil)762

(This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2005 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode in A.S.No.49 of 2004 reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2004 passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No.61 of 1999.) This second appeal is focussed by D1 and D2, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 21.02.2005 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode in A.S.No.49 of 2004 reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2004 passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No.61 of 1999. 2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus: a] The original plaintiff-Nachiammal filed the suit for partition seeking the following reliefs: - To pass a judgment and decree as follows: a) directin...

R. Kalyanasundaram and Others Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tind ...

Court: Chennai

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the tractor with tipper bearing registration No.TN 32 J 3578 to the petitioner, which was seized by the respondent on 30.09.2012.) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the tractor with tipper bearing registration No.TN 25 AA 1724 to the petitioner, which was seized by the respondent on 30.09.2012. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the JCB bearing Registration No. TN 32 M 9583 to the petitioner, which was seized by the respondent on 30.09.2012.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Government appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of ...