Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

M/S. Kobelco Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Com ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in G.D.No.122/2012-13-2 dated 10.10.2012 and quash the goods detention notice.) 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.5,43,267/-, which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority concerned, while passing 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, which may be passed by the authority concerned. iii) It is made clear that, while making recovery...

Dinesh Karthik Vs. the Additional Commissioner O/O the Commissioner of ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent herein in Order-in-Original No.47/2012 and quash the order dt.10.02.2012 passed therein.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order, dated 10.2.2012, had been passed by the respondent, in Order-in-Original No.47/2012, relating to the non-payment of service tax, payable by the petitioner, under the category of 'Business Support Services', without a reasonable opportunity having been given to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 10.2.2012, may be set aside, making it clear that it would be open to the respondent to pass appropriate orders, as per law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, ...

R. Perumal Vs. the Secretary to Government Industries Dept. Government ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing respondents to consider representations dated 25.9.2012 and 9.10.2012 for extension of lease for further period beyond 14.10.2012 of mining for Rough Stone at Survey No.849 Nathathahalli Village Dharmapuri District and take steps to execute necessary Deeds etc. in favour of petitioner.) 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 petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representations, dated 25.9.2012 and 9.10.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of th...

Seva Chakkara Samajam Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the Chairman Child Wel ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(5)LW293; 2012(6)CTC625

(Prayer in C.R.P.(PD)No.3434 of 2012:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed by the first respondent, on 6.7.2012, in C.W.C.No.170 of 2012. Prayer in C.R.P.(PD)No.3435 of 2012:-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed by the first respondent, on 6.7.2012, in C.W.C.No.171 of 2012 and to direct the fourth respondent to handover the child to the revision petitioner-Society in the interest of child.) COMMON ORDER: 1. These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders, dated 6.7.2012, passed in C.W.C.Nos.170 & 171 of 2012, by the respondents 1 and 2, thereby, directing the production of one child, by name S.C.Sairam, aged about 2 = years before the Child Welfare Committee in the first week of every month and for handing over another child, by name, Bhavana, to Balamandir Kamaraj Trust, viz., the fourth respondent herein. 2. Mr.M.S.Krishnan...

Mrs. S. Pasumpon Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax and An ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in RC.No.16822 of 1986 in Form No.VII dated 21.08.1990 issued under Section 11 of Sub-Section 5 of the Tamilnadu (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 which now repealed and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition was filed in the year 2002 by Mrs.S.Pasumpon, challenging the impugned proceedings passed by the first respondent, The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax Ceiling Tambaram at Adambakkam, Chennai in RC.No.16822 of 1986 in Form No.VII dated 21.08.1990 issued under Section 11 of Sub-Section 5 of the Tamilnadu (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 which has been repealed now and to quash the same and pass any further order. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his submissions to quash the impugned proceedings narrated that the land covered in Paimash No.318/4 measuring Cawnis 0.341 at Kilakattalai Vil...

M/S. Grow Group, Rep. by Its Proprietor J. Durai Babu Vs. the Commissi ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal, dated 22.5.1998 and the representation, dated 1.2.2012.) 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 petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal, dated 22.5.1998, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal, dated dated 22.5.1998, on merits and in accord...

M. Natarajan Vs. Alexendar Mohan, Inspector General of Police and Othe ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(2)LW(Crl)656; 2013(1)MWN(Cr)89; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)710

(Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 to entertain the complaint of the petitioner Crl.M.P.No.2671/2012 on his file and proceed in accordance with Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.) The petitioner filed a private complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8, in Crl.M.P.No.2671/2012 against the police officials for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 347, 364, 448, 449, 451 r/w 34 IPC. praying to forward the said complaint to the competent Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 07.06.2012 returned the complaint on the point of jurisdiction to file before the Court having the competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint, in the light of the Judgment reported in 2012(1) Law Weekly (Criminal). Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition. 2. Brief fac...

M. Rajendran Vs. K. Manickkam and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2005 made in M.C.O.P No.519 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Additional Sub Judge), Erode.) 1. In this appeal, the appellant, seeks enhancement of compensation. 2. On 28.02.2003, the appellant sustained injury in a road accident. The Tribunal mainly on account of absence of fracture granted him only Rs.7,500/- as compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence of P.W.2, disability Certificate and X-rays and contended that the appellant had sustained major injury in his leg, however, the Tribunal granted him very very less compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that as per the evidence of doctor (R.W.1), there was no fracture and treatment record also has not been produced. Exaggerated version in the claim petition will not be a grou...

C. Gurusamy and Others Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode Distr ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayers: W.P.4354 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 22.12.2011 made in Na.Ka.No. 4771/2011/A1 on the file of the first respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the mutation of the revenue records in the name of the petitioners and pass such further or other orders. W.P.4355 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 22.12.2011 made in Na.Ka.No. 4735/2011/A1 on the file of the first respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the mutation of the revenue records in the name of the petitioners in respect of 14 cents in R.S.No.356/4, (Old S.No.624/B) Karumandichellipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District and pass such further or other or...

Dr. D. Purushothaman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary Law ...

Court: Chennai

(Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 639 of 2012.) ElipeDharma Rao, J. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 639 of 2012, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal. 2. The facts in brief are as follows :- The appellant was appointed on 01.09.2007 as a Lecturer (Senior Scale) on contract basis for the academic year 1997-1998 at Government Law College, Madurai and was terminated on 30.04.1998. However, the appellant was subsequently appointed on 14.07.1998 on contract basis and was allowed to work continuously without any break. In the meantime, the appellant was transferred and posted at Coimbatore and retired from service on 30.11.2010. According to the appellant, he was appointed in a substantive post after going through the selection process as has been done in the case of regular appointees and following the G...