Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Tvl. Jayashree Plastics Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer

Court: Chennai

(This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to revoke the cancellation of the TNVAT registration of the petitioner made without giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.) Mr.S. Kanmani Annamalai, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent. 2. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, 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 14.9.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 3. The learned Government Advocate 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 14.9.2012, on merits and in accordance with l...

Rahminder Kaur Vs. M/S. S.F. Industries, Rep. by Its Proprietor, M. Su ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Cr)DCC81; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)680

(PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order dated 28.10.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.974 of 2005, on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore and consequently discharge the petitioner from C.C.No.13029 of 2005 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Egmore.) The revision petitioner / second accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.933 of 2006 against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.974 of 2005 in C.C.No.13029 of 2005 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Egmore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The accused had represented that they were the owners of the land situated at Ambattur and further represented that they had got the said property as their share from the ancestral property. They agreed to sell the same to the complainant and received a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- as advance from the complainant. Subsequently, the accused for reasons best known to them had refused to sell the...

R. Saravanan Vs. Pavathal

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)651

(PRAYER : Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.117 of 2008, on the file of Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Erode, dated 19.11.2008 against Crl.M.P.No.729 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District, 28.01.2008.) The revision petitioner / appellant / respondent has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.146 of 2009 against the judgment passed in C.A.No.117 of 2008, on the file of Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Erode, dated 19.11.2008 against Crl.M.P.No.729 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District, 28.01.2008. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner / mother had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.729 of 2007 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, Erode District against the respondent / son. It was submitted that the responde...

Dr. Anil Kumar Chandna Vs. Union of India Rep. by Secretary to Governm ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ534

(W.P.No.28407 of 2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the fourth respondent pertaining to his order bearing No.B1-6/2011 dated 13.09.2011 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent pertaining to his order bearing No.DE-108-2011/B-2828 dated 16.09.2011 and quash the same and consequently issue a direction to the respondents that the petitioner is deemed to continue as a member of the Faculty of Dentistry of the third respondent University as well as a Member of the Dental Council of India till 31.3.2013. W.P.No.3655 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the fourth respondent herein pertaining to his order bearing No.B1-6/2012 dated 4.1.2012 and the consequential order passed by the 1st respondent herein bearing D.O.No.DE-108-2011/A-8002 dated 10.1.2012 and qua...

Sriranga thevar Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its Secretary, Home ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(2)MLJ(Crl)48

(PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(Ms.) No.684 dated 19.08.2009 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the G.O.1155 dated 11.09.2008 and release the petitioner prematurely.) The petitioner is a life convict. An order of conviction was recorded against the petitioner for the offences under Section 302 r/w 34 and 341 IPC in S.C.No.42 of 1996 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi on 30.11.2001. Pursuant to the life imprisonment imposed on him, the petitioner was confined to the Central Prison, Palayamkottai on 30.11.2001. The appeal filed by the petitioner alongwith his son was also dismissed on Crl.A.No.66 of 2002. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8015 of 2008 before the ...

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Boopathy Kannan and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)TNMAC445

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed against the award and decree dated 08.02.2008 made in MCOP.No.206 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode.) R. SUBBIAH, J. Challenging the Award dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode, in M.C.O.P.No.206 of 2005, New India Assurance Company has filed the present Appeal. 2. First respondent is the claimant. Second respondent driver of the vehicle, third respondent owner of the vehicle in question and Appellant - Insurance Company are Respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts are as follows: According to 1st respondent/claimant, on 09.11.2004, at about 6.30 PM, he was riding his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-34-A-4987 along with his wife Kavitha as pillion rider on the left extreme side of Tiruchengode to Pallipalayam road for purchasing grocery for his f...

Benash Trust, a Public Trust, Rep. by One of the Board of Trustees, Ma ...

Court: Chennai

(These Appeals are focussed as against the judgments and decrees dated 06.03.2009 passed in O.S.Nos.2071 of 2006 and 3499 of 2006 by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) These appeals are focussed animadverting upon the judgments and decrees dated 06.03.2009 passed in O.S.Nos.2071 of 2006 and 3499 of 2006 by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Niggard and bereft of details, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two appeals would run thus: (a) There are two suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking the relief as under: O.S.No.2071 of 2006: "(a) To grant injunction restraining the defendant who is a mere trespasser from occupying the suit property; (b) To grant damages at the rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m. For illegal occupation of the suit property from 01.08.2005 to date of the defendant is may to surrender the prope...

S. Basheria and Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, the Secretary, Hom ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ542; 2013(1)CWC325

(This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in the Khulanama dated 9.6.2006 certified by the second respondent in C.K.06 dated 27.7.2006, to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs.7,00000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs only) jointly and severally by way of damages to the petitioners 1 to 4.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent viz., Chief Kazi of the Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 09.06.2006 and certified by him on 27.07.2006 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to pay compensation of Rs.7,00000/- jointly and severally by way of damages to the petitioners herein. 2. When the writ petition came up on 29.01.2007, this court admitted the writ petition. In the miscellaneous petition, the petitioner s...

S. Balachandran Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation, Rep. ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent herein in the publication dated 01.11.2006 under Tender Notification No.11/2006/2007 in so far as it relates to Sl.No.8 therein and the proceedings in TIIC/SRB/LAO-VRG/2007-08 dated 11.06.2007 of the third respondent herein and the sale deed dated 11.06.2007 executed by the respondents 1 to 3 in favour of 4th respondent and quash the same as null and void. (Prayer amended as per order dated 12.08.2010 in M.P.No.1/2010 by NPVJ). The petitioner has filed by the writ petition, initially, seeking to challenge an order dated 01.11.2006, wherein and by which, the respondent Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (for short TIIC) made a publication followed by a letter dated 11.06.2007 sent by the Branch Manager, TIIC, Special Recovery Branch Division and sought to set aside the same. 2. By the communication dated 11.06.2007, the petitioner ...

Parapatty Suresh @ Sureshkumar and Others Vs. the Commissioner of Poli ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(2)LW(Crl)597; 2013(1)MWN(Cr)1; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)449

(Prayer in H.C.P.No.380/2012 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in Detention Order C.M.P.No.18/SLUM GRABBER/SALEM CITY/2012 dated 28.01.2012 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. Prayer in H.C.P.No.617/2012 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in Detention Order C.M.P.No.21/SLUM GRABBER/SALEM CITY/2012 dated 28.02.2012 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's husband Thiru.Gowsiga Boopathy, M/A 59 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. Prayer in H.C.P.No.1406/2...