Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Bakiyam and Another Vs. Veerappan Chatram Panchayat Board Rep. by Its ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ38; 2013(1)LW638

(Prayer: S.A.No.1881 of 2000is focussed as against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.8 of 2000 dated 26.04.2000 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court, Erode reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 1999 dated 27.09.1999 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, (Civil Judge, Junior) Erode. S.A.No.1884 of 2000is focussed as against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.7 of 2000 dated 27.04.2000 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court, Erode confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.24 of 1999 dated 01.10.1999 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Erode.) Common Judgment: 1. These appeals are focussed animadverting upon the judgments and decrees passed in (i) A.S.No.8 of 2000 dated 26.04.2000 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court, Erode reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 1999 dated 27.09.1999 on the file of the learned Principal District Muns...

M/S. Ivrcl Infrastructures and Projects Ltd.Rep. by Its Authorised Sig ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is 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 1st respondent in TNGST NO.33530903743 quash the impugned proceedings dated 15.5.2012 as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court and this Honourable court.) 1. Mr.A.R.Jayaprathap, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents. 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 fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 17.5.2012, relating to the refund claim made by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 3. The learned Government Advocate 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 appeari...

Partnet, Chennai and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Main) ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant copies of records and opportunity of cross examination of the sellers, as prayed for by the petitioners in their letters dated 9.7.12, 9.8.12 and 24.9.12.) 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 respondent had submitted that the relevant records of the petitioner, as prayed for by it in its request, dated 24.09.2012, shall be furnished to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from today. 3. In such circumstances, since no further orders are necessary, this Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed....

Dr. A. Vassou Vs. Arulmurugan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ35; 2013(1)LW631

(Appeal and Cross Objection against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in O.S.No.10 of 2006.)COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is focussed by the defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in O.S.No.10 of 2006. Whereas the Cross Objection has been filed by the plaintiff claiming enhanced amount in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- over and above the decreetal sum. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal and Cross Objection would run thus: (i) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: -To grant a decree and judgment in his favour and as against the defend...

Microweb Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its President Ramsingh Motilal ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to assess Bill of Entry No's.7558779 dated 01.08.2012, 7559001 dated 01.08.2012, 7873851 dated 06.09.2012, 8027868 dated 24.09.2012, 8027579 dated 24.09.2012 and 8027654 dated 24.09.2012 filed by the petitioner by allowing exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 as per Final Order Nos.941, 942 and 1109 of 2008 dated August 28, 2008 and September 29, 2008 and allow clearance of the subject goods in this Writ Petition as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2.The writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to assess Bill of Entry Nos.7558779, 7559001, 7873851, 8027868, 8027654 and 8027579, dated 01.08.2012, 01.08.2012, 06.09.2012, 24.09.2012, 24.09.20...

Tvl. Chinnaiah Wood Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings of the revision order in CST 818761/2007-08 dated 15.12.2011 and quash this revision of assessment proceedings under CST Act as illegal and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders under TNVAT Act after giving opportunity of personal hearing.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 15.12.2011, is arbitrary and erroneous, as it had been passed contrary to the relevant provisions of law. He had further submitted that the respondent ought to have passed an order, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, accepting the returns filed by the petitioner. Instead, the responden...

G. Karthik Vs. Shyam Krishna Agarwal

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER :Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.A.No.347 of 2006, dated 03.01.2012, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai and confirming the order / judgment passed in C.C.No.1255 of 2003, dated 14.11.2006, on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and set-aside the same) The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.78 of 2012 to set-aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.347 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai, dated 03.01.2012, confirming the order passed in C.C.No.1255 of 2003, on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, dated 14.11.2006. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- The accused availed financial assistance from the complainant in April 2000 to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- and undertook to pay the entir...

Mrs. K. Stellaprema Vs. Mrs. V. Hemalata

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER :Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed in C.A.No.108 of 2007, dated 25.03.2008, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction made in CC.No.7325 of 2004, dated 22.03.2007, on the file of XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.) The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.327 of 2012 against the judgment made in C.A.No.108 of 2007, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction made in CC.No.7325 of 2004, on the file of XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 2. The respondent / complainant's case is as follows:- During the year 2003, on various occasions, the accused had borrowed sums of money amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant, to help her husband in the course of his film production business and executed demand promissory notes in favour of the complainant. On demand made by the complai...

M/S. Raahul Foundations, Rep by Its Proprietor A. Ravikrishna Kumar, C ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in C.No.IV/9/452/09 STC/ADJN dated 08.03.2011 and to quash the same.) 1. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....

M/S. Southern Enterprises, Rep.by Partner Mr.D.Dhaya Devadass Vs. the ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent list the case for hearing filed in Form X dated 11.01.12 relating to the assessment year in TIN/33820985057/09-10 dated 12-12-11.) 1. Today, when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the endorsement made, this writ petition is dismissed, as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed....