Chennai Court October 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.
M/S. Amaravathy Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Tirupur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
(Prayer in W.P.No.27501 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33322425643/2010-11 and quash the order dated 24.10.2011 passed therein. Prayer in W.P.No.27502 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the respondent in TIN 33322425643/2010-11 and quash the order dated 8.8.2012 passed therein.) Common Order 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent had passed the impugned orders, dated 24.10.2011, in W.P.No.27501 of 2012, and 8.8.2012, in W.P.No.27502 of 2012, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 3. The said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the p...
K. Udhayakumar Vs. Shri Ramdhas Finance Private Ltd. Rep by Its Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
(Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-IV) Chennai, dated 30.09.2009 made in A.S.No.458 of 2005 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the XV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai dated 01.12.2004 made in O.S.No.4882 of 2000.) The defendant in the original suit is the appellant herein. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.4882 of 2000 on the file of the trial court for recovery of a sum of Rs.72,240/- being the principal amount of Rs.42,000/- lent under the suit promissory note and the interest accrued up to the date of plaint, together with a further interest at the rate of 24% per annum compounded quarterly from the date of plaint till realization and also for costs. 2. The suit was filed based on the plaint averment that on 01.08.1997, the appellant herein/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.42,000/- from the respondent herein/plaintiff and executed the suit pro...
C. Govindaraj and Another Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer (Enf.,) Rovin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ref.No.GD.No.66/2012-13 dated 12.10.2012 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondents to release the vehicle in Reg.No.OR 09 L 0177 from all the liabilities.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 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 demanded by the authority concerned, who had passed the detention order. ii) On payment of such tax amount, the goods detained shall be released and the same shall be subject to the final adjudication order, whic...
T.K. Mahalingam Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 05.10.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent in his office Ref: NaKa.A2.814/2012 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice, dated 05.10.2012, issued by the second respondent. 3. It is seen that the impugned notice issued by the second respondent, dated 05.10.2012, asking the petitioner to explain as to whether the information furnished by the petitioner, relating to the ownership of the property in question is a correct information. It has also been stated that, by the impugned notice, dated 05.10.2012, issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has been asked to submit his explanation, within a period of seven days from the d...
C. Visalakshi Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Tirupur District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent made in R.No.5359/A2.2012 dt 26.9.2012 directing payment of compounding fee of Rs.9,000/- and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. he main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order had been passed by the respondent, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner had not been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 26.9.2012, is set aside. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondent to pass an appropriate order, based on the Memo of charge issued under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, on 15.03.2012 and the expla...
Dharamchand and Others Vs. M/S. Alacrity Housing Ltd. Rep. by Its Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
(Prayer:-Appeal against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.09.2011 in Application No.1009 of 2011 in E.P.No.3459 of 2010 in C.S.No.398 of 2007.) P. DEVADASS, J. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge passed on 06.09.2011, in Application No.1009 of 2011, in E.P.No.3459 of 2010, in C.S.No.398 of 2007, defendants 2 to 4 [Judgment Debtors 2 to 4] have directed this intra-court Appeal. 2. The members of Plaintiff, 'Aravalli Flat Owners Association', wanted to purchase flats, to be constructed by 'M/s.Alacrity Housing Limited', the first defendant, on the suit property, measuring about 19029 sq.ft., comprised in R.S.No.1550/6, situate in Murrays Gate Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 18. On 18.12.2000, the second defendant, as Power Agent of owners of the suit property, entered into a sale agreement with the builder/first defendant for the sale of the suit land. First defendant issued allotment letters to the members of Plainti...
R. Chinna Thangam and Others Vs. M. Kaliyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
(Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track No.1), Coimbatore in O.S. No.422 of 2006.) When the matter was called on 12.10.2012, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. Hence, the matter was directed to be posted today under the 'dismissal caption'. 2. Even today also no one appeared on behalf of the appellants and there is no representation also. The appeal is of the year 2008. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for default. However, there is no order as to costs....
P.V. Mahadevan, Chennai Vs. the Head of the Registration Department Cu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Head of the Department cum the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, Chennai, the first respondent herein made in Pa.Mu.No.15952/P1/2010 dated 28.5.2011 in confirming the proceedings of the District Registrar (Admn.) (in the cadre of Assistant Inspector General of Registration), South Chennai, Saidapet, Chennai-15 the second respondent herein made in No.14579/Aa1/09 dated 25.01.2010 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to release the registered settlement deed presented by the petitioner vide document No.P.251/05 dated 25.09.2005 before the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Saidapet, the third respondent herein by accepting the stamp duty already paid for registering settlement and without making any further demand of duty within a short date that may be fixed by this Court.) 1. The ...
T. Ananthi Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in order No. Ku.No.A1/26005/2012 dated 20.09.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner's car TATA INDIGO LS EURO III bearing Reg.no.PY-02. D 7777.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed before this Court an order, dated 09.10.2012, passed by the first respondent, pursuant to the impugned show cause notice,dated 20.09.2012. A copy of the said order had also been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It had also been submitted that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the order, dated 09....
Sathiavani Vs. Krishnaradjou (Deceased) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
(Appeal suit filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2009 made in O.S.No.11 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Judge, Puducherry.) R. Subbiah, J. This Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.06.2009 passed by the Principal District Court of Puducherry, by which it has dismissed the suit (O.S.No.11 of 2007) for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit properties. 2. Appellant is Plaintiff and Respondents 1 to 9 are Defendants 1 to 9. For easy reference, parties are hereafter referred to as per their ranking in the original suit. 3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.649 of 1996 before the Additional Sub Court, Pondicherry for the following reliefs: a) to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit properties, b) to direct delivery of possession of such sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »