Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

M/S. Sea Marine Logistics Pvt Ltd, Represented by Its Branch Manager, ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to de-stuff the container No.CBHU 3204186 and permit the empty container to be removed from the premises of the first respondent without any collection of further storage charges. W.P.No.24327 of 2012 Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to de-stuff the container No.CBHU 3195280 and permit the empty container to be removed from the premises of the first respondent without any collection of further storage charges. W.P.No.24328 of 2012 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to de-stuff the container No.CBHU 3175149 and permit the empty container to be removed from the premises of the first respondent without any collection of further storage charges.) Common Order 1. Heard...

Kiran Global Chemicals Ltd. Rep. by Its General Manager K.A. Menon Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing respondent to consider and pass orders as per law in respect of petitioner's Mining lease application to mine Silica sand, dated 3.6.2008 in respect of petitioner's own patta land situated in S.No.119/A etc. measuring to an extent of 2.14.75 Hectares in Kilpudupattu Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.) 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 on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the application, dated 3.6.2008, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In vi...

Badru Vs. A. Maruthachalam and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ551

(Appeal filed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore in O.S.No.632 of 2007.) Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore in O.S.No.632 of 2007, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 2. For convenience sake, 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 appeal would run thus: (i) The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance seeking the following reliefs including the alternative relief: - to pass a decree and judgment a) directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the balance sale consideration within a time to be stipulated by th...

B.V. Prajwal Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Secretary to Gover ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein to accept tax monthly or quarterly as tendered without insisting on payment of tax at the rate of 1/10th of the quarterly tax in respect of the petitioners tourist vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA 55/645 Maxi cab (Swaraj Mazda) covered by permit issued under section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act for every entry in Tamilnadu.) 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 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 receiv...

Krishnaveni and Another Vs. Manokaran and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ94

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009 made in M.A.C.T.O.P No.232 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), Puducherry, Karaikal.) 1. The dependents of a deceased in a road accident dissatisfied with reducing half of the quantified compensation amount have directed this appeal. 2. On 24.07.2006, in a road accident, Kanagaraj lost his life. The Tribunal assessed loss of dependency at Rs.6,48,000/-. The Tribunal holding that the deceased was not having a valid driving license, thus, contributed to the accident, fastened 50% of negligence on the deceased, reduced the amount to Rs.3,24,000/-, deducted 1/3 and took Rs.2,16,000/- and added Rs.10,000, Rs.5,000, Rs.20,000 towards cremation expenses, loss of consortium of the widow and for loss of love and affection, thus, totally awarded Rs.2,51,000/-. 3. According to the learned counsel for the ap...

A. Venkatasamy Vs. S. Lakshmi and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Civil)867

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2012, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirukkalukundram.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.3 of 2012, pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirukkalukundram. 2. The first respondent herein filed the above suit for setting aside the decree, dated 24.04.2009, passed by this Court in C.S.No.287 of 2009, on the ground that the compromise decree is vitiated by fraud and not binding on the first respondent/plaintiff and also to set aside the sale deed, dated 8.4.2010, executed, pursuant to the decree passed in C.S.No.287 of 2009 and for the relief of declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction. In that suit, it is alleged by the first respondent/plaintiff that the suit property, originally belonged to the third defendant, Mrs.Sophia Parveen and she ...

Shri Swetambar Stanakwasi JaIn Educational Society Represented by Mr.A ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Notices of 3rd respondent namely, distraint Notice dated 14.6.2012 demanding impugned Notices of 3rd respondent namely, distraint Notice dated 14.06.2012 demanding Rs.3,73,411.00 for falsi years 1401 to 1417 and Form 6 Notice dated 14.6.2012 demanding Rs.80,252/- for fasli years 1418 to 1421 in respect of the land T.S.No.5688, T.Nagar, Chennai and quash the said notices as illegal and unconstitutional and directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to expeditiously consider and issue orders of exemption under Section 29(h) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act 1966 with reference to the lands of the Petitioner Society which are being put to use for educational purposes by two schools run by the Petitioner's society Viz: Sri Mangichand Bandari Jain Higher Secondary Schools and Sri Tarachand Vidyalaya, T.Nagar, Chennai.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as ...

S. Indra Vs. the Regional Manager Indian Bank Near C.M.C. Vellore and ...

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 to sanction the educational loan to the petitioner.) The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to sanction the educational loan to her. 2.The petitioner joined the Diploma Course in Nursing at Arun School of Nursing, Vellore, for the academic year 2011-12. The duration of the course is four years. She hails from a poor family and her father is a coolie. The family has no sufficient means to meet the various expenses of her studies. The petitioner has to pay Rs.1,92,500/- for the entire course. She has given the break-up details of the fees structure for four years in her affidavit. She has approached the respondent bank for sanction of loan. But she was not even provided with the loan application. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner has approached the District Co...

S. Karuppannan and Another Vs. N. Chinnappan and Others

Court: Chennai

Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and other reliefs. Defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 filed I.A.No.1005 of 2009 for interim injunction as if the second defendant purchased the suit property from the first defendant and the second defendant is in possession of the same. In that application, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.371 of 2012 under Order XIX Rules 1 and 2 to permit them to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit who filed I.A.No.1005 of 2009 and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 3. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that under Order XIX Rule 2, when an affidavit is filed in support of an application and when that party is not prepared to examine himself, the opposite party can seek permission of the court to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit to prove his case and for that purpose, Order XIX Rule 2 is provided in the Code of Civil Procedur...

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the records made in the impugned Award Na.Ka.No.A4603/2002 dated 20.11.2003 passed by the Inspector of Labour, Sivaganga (Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981), the 1st respondent and quash the same.) The present writ petition has been filed by the Executive Engineer of Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (herein after called as "TWAD Board") along with two other persons, viz., the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Managing Director of TWAD Board, challenging the correctness of the award passed by the first respondent/Inspector of Labour, Sivaganga (Authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981), in which, a direction was given by the first respondent to the petitioners to give permanent status to the second...