Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Nakkheeran Gopal Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ572

(Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to grant permission to conduct the meeting to be held on 15.06.2012 at 6.00 p.m in Devaneya Pavanar Arangam, (LLA Building), Chennai - 600 002. Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for committing contempt of court by wantonly disobeying the order dated 15.06.2012 made in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.15444 of 2012.) COMMON ORDER: The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking for a direction to the second respondent viz., Superintendent, District Library Office, Chennai to grant permission to conduct the meeting to be held on 15.06.2012 at 6.00 p.m in Devaneya Pavanar Arangam, (LLA Building), Chennai - 600 002. 2. The petitioner, Founder of the Chinnakuthoosi Memorial Trust organised a function to celebrate the 78th birth anniversary of Chinnakuthoosi, a Senior Journalist. The function was or...

Dr. K. Kesavan and Another Vs. the Director of Collegiate Education an ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER IN BOTH W.Ps.: Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1335/A2/2012 dt.9.7.2012, quash the same and direct the second respondent to grant approval to the petitioners' appointment as Assistant Professor of Zoology and Botany respectively, with effect from 16.6.2010.) The petitioner in W.P.No.19085 of 2012 was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology in the third respondent College. The petitioner in W.P.No.19087 of 2012 was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany in the third respondent College. Both the posts were sanctioned by the proceedings, dated 26.7.2007 of the first respondent. They were appointed after they underwent selection process. 2. After the appointment, the petitioners are working in the third respondent College and they are taking classes assigne...

A.N. Baskaran Vs. C. Ramesh

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER :Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set-aside the orders dated 12.03.2010 passed by the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1553 of 2009 in C.A.No.218 of 2008, by the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and dismiss the same with costs.) The revision petitioner / respondent / complainant had preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.335 of 2010 against the judgment made in Crl.M.P.No.1553 of 2009 in C.A.No.218 of 2008, on the file of learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and dismiss the same. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/- from the complainant for his urgent family expenses and promised to repay the amount within six months, with interest at the rate of 2% per month and had executed a promissory note to this effect. ON demand, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.576178, dated 20.01.2006 f...

T.P. Vadivelu Vs. S. Padmavathy and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(5)LW538; 2012(8)MLJ506

(This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2005 passed by the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.307 of 2004 confirming the preliminary decree dated 05.02.2004 passed by the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.6174 of 1995.) This second appeal is focussed by D3, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 07.04.2005 passed by the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.307 of 2004 confirming the preliminary decree dated 05.02.2004 passed by the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.6174 of 1995. 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 first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition seeking the following reliefs: - To pass a jud...

Tvl. N. Palanichamy Chettiar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Tax Case (Revisions) filed under Section 38 of the TNGST Act of 1959 to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench dted 29.05.1998 passed in T.A.Nos.575 & 576/96.) Common Order: Chitra Venkataraman, J. 1. The assessee is on revision as against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 raising the following question of law :- " Whether the order of the Tribunal is correct in law which has been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to take out xerox copies of the seized records (D7 records) ?" 2. A perusal of the order of assessment for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 in T.C.Nos.1852/2006 and 1814/2006 respectively shows that as against Nil reported turnover, the Assessing Officer determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs.16,900/- and 15,898/- respectively. 3. Leaving aside the question raised, since as per the law that existed during the relevant point of time, the liability ...

Hps Engineers, Represented by Its Proprietor, Indarjit Singh Vs. the C ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in W.P.No.28002 of 2012: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in his GD No.4866/12-13 dated 4.10.2012 and to quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.28003 of 2012:Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in his GD No.4867/12-13 dated 4.10.2012 and to quash the same.) COMMON ORDER: 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.5,23,979-(G.D.Nos.4866/12-13 and 4867/12-13), which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority...

Balachander Vs. Vayyapuri

Court: Chennai

(Prayers: Civil Revision Petition No.3196 of 2012 against the order dated 15.3.2012 in I.A. No.104 of 2012 in O.S. No.594 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Namakkal. Civil Revision Petition No.2193 of 2012 against the order dated 8.12.2011 in I.A. No.821 of 2011 in O.S. No.594 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Namakkal. Civil Revision Petition No.2395 of 2012 against the order dated 15.6.2012 in I.A. No.235 of 2012 in O.S. No.594 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Namakkal.) 1. Defendant is the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 2193 & 3169 of 2012. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P. (PD) No.2395 of 2012. 2. The Plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S. No.594 of 2003 for recovery of money on the basis of the pro-notes executed by the Defendant. In the Suit, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined another witness as PW2 and the Defendant also examined himself as DW1. At that stage, the Defendant filed Application under Section 154 of the Evidence ...

M/S. C.S. Garments and Another Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Ti ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 28-08-2012 filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the sum of Rs.73,59,915-00 along with interest in accordance with law.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate 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 representation, dated 28.08.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 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 respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 28.08.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 6 weeks ...

R. Dharuman and Another Vs. the Union of India, Rep by Its Secretary t ...

Court: Chennai

(Both these writ petitions are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to exercise power under subsection (1) & (2) of Section 30 of the Tea Act, 1953 to fix the minimum price of green tea leaf payable to the petitioners being small tea growers in the Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu.) COMMON ORDER: In both the writ petitions, the relief claimed by the petitioners are identical. They sought for a direction to the Union of India to exercise power under Sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 30 of Tea Act, 1953 to fix the minimum price of green tea leaf payable to the petitioners, being small tea growers in the district of Nilgiris. 2. The petitioner in the first writ petition is a retired Government Employee owning a small tea garden, to the extent of 1.5 acres at Kekkatty Village, Nilgiris District. The petitioner in the second writ petition is a practising Advocate owning a small tea garden to the extent of 1.5 a...

M/S. Saagrr Infra Limited Rep by Its Director Vs. Pioneer Tools and Ha ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(6)CTC282; 2012(8)MLJ92

(Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 21.2.2012 in I.A.Nos.15744 and 15743 of 2011 in O.S.No.2745 of 2011 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) COMMON ORDER Defendant is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. 2. The respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.2745 of 2011 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,73,180/=. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.15743 of 2011 under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the parties to Arbitration and also filed I.A.No.15744 of 2011 under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to stop all further proceedings in the suit. Both the applications were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, these revisions are filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent filed a suit on the basis of the purchase order made by the revision petitioner and the sale of articles pursuant t...