Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

B. Suvarama Phani Vs. the Chairman / Managing Director, Miot Hospitals ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER The case of the complainant is as follows: 2. The complainants husband B.V. Ramana Rao, aged 46 years, employed as Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai, went to the opposite partys hospital on 6-4-2007 for Executive Health Check Up, to which the bank officials are entitled. In the hospital various tests were conducted by the opposite parties. As per the Directors instructions, the hospital authorities informed the complainant that there was loss of weight up to 8 Kgs. and they suggested him to take CT Scan of the abdomen. Accordingly, on 10.04.2007, he underwent CT Scan of abdomen; and after that he fell down unconscious. The hospital staff helped him and called the Doctor who informed the complainant that he had low BP and that is the reason why he became unconscious and he was taken to Intensive Care Unit and they came to know that anesthesia was not given properly and that the Sodium contrast was not suitable and hence he became unconscious...

Kaleel and Another Vs. the Inspector of Police Krishnagiri Town Police ...

Court: Chennai

1. The petitioners who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Secs.489-B and 489-C, were arrested on 30.8.2012 with reference to Cr.No.435 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Mrs.Muthu, W/o Raman was operating a Savings Bank Account with Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Krishnagiri Branch and she availed a jewel loan for a sum of Rs.10000/- on 17.6.2011. On 18.5.2012 she remitted a sum of Rs.10200/- towards the closure of jewel loan in the denomination of twenty 500 rupees notes and two 100 rupees notes. All the twenty 500 rupees notes were found to be fake notes. On a complaint given by the Manager, the present case was registred for the alleged offence stated above. 3. Investigation revealed that the said Mrs.Muthu received the said amount from one Rajammal, who is the President of a Self Help Group. According to witnesses, the latter obtained the amount from Bank of Baroda, Vepannapalli Branch and the petitioner ...

Bharathiya Kovai Mavatta Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam Rep. by Its General ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in W.P.No. 17458 of 2001: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in connection with the award dated 26.7.2001, passed in I.D.No.329 of 1999 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No. 21236 of 2001: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent herein in I.D.No.329 of 1999 and quash the award dated 26.7.2001, in so far it declined to grant permission to retrench 10 out of 31 workmen sought to be retrenched by the petitioner. Prayer in W.P.No. 23830 of 2003: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent herein in G.O.(D) No.639 Labout and Employment Department dated 17.07.2003, quash the same and direct the First respo...

Omandur Village Panchayat, Manacha Nallur Taluk, Trichy District. Rep. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(7)MLJ780

(PRAYER IN W.P.No.44633 OF 2002: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Mu.Mu.711/2002, dated 28.03.2002, and quash the same. PRAYER IN W.P.No.18799 OF 2003: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Tho.Mu.Di.Ke.1034-2001-2002, dated 02.11.2001 and quash the same.) COMMON ORDER It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.18799 of 2003 that the property covered in Survey Nos.357/7A and 357/7C of Omandur Village originally belonged to one P.M.Perianna Pillai, who donated the same to the village temple. In the said land, the people of the said village, after collecting the money, constructed a Kalyanamandapam to utilize the revenue for the temple. Thereafter, the Tahsildar has issued patta in the na...

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Chennai V ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Tax Case (Revision) to revise the orders of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Chennai as passed in STA. No. 470/99 dated 9.2.2001.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. In spite of notice on the respondent, there is no representation in person or through authorised representative. Hence, the revision filed by the Revenue is considered on merits and order is passed. The assessment year under consideration is 1996-97. The above Tax Case (Revision) was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal in having refixed the taxable turnover in respect of Tvl. Anusha Leather Pvt.Ltd at Rs.5 lakhs is legally correct while the said concern was proved to be non-existent and therefore, the suppression found out for Rs.10 lakhs had to be upheld? 2. Whether the Tribunal has legally erred in having set aside the suppression for Rs.25 lakhs found out in respect of Tvl. Bajaj Garments Limited in v...

Shree Mahabaleswara Auto Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Repre ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(7)MLJ805

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent relating to all clauses (a) to (d) of sub-Rule 1 of Rule 3 of the Company Law Board (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 1993, notified by Notification dated 28.4.1993 and to quash the same.) ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The present litigation is at the height of misuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. This case would show how the heat of the personal enmity between the clients is being turned towards the Judicial Officers by a clever and cunning litigant, ignoring all the legal dicta and the judicial conventions, thus indulging in threatening measures against the Judicial Officers. The following reasons would justify our observations. 3. The petitioner is a company, engaged in manufacture of automobile parts. In 1999, the s...

A.M. Adhil Badusha Vs. Sucharitha Anand and Another

Court: Chennai

(Appeal filed as against the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in O.S.No.2 of 2008.) Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in O.S.No.2 of 2008, 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: a] The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance seeking the following reliefs: To pass a decree and judgment against the defendants- a) The specific performance of the suit agreement directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property within a time to be specified by this court failing which this court may be pleased to execute the same in favour of the ...

Rani and Another Vs. Chandra and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(5)LW453; 2012(7)MLJ892

(Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 15.2.2011 in I.A.No.38 of 2010 in O.S.No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvarur.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the revision petitioners. 2. The first respondent herein filed the suit for partition and the revision petitioners filed written statement stating that some of the properties purchased in the name of the first respondent and her husband were not included though they also belong to the joint family. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the revision petitioners to include those properties to the plaint schedule and after the plaintiff's side witness was examined in chief, the revision petitioners filed application to include certain properties purchased in the name of the first respondent/plaintiff and her husband to the plaint schedule and that application was dismissed and as against the same, this revision is filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that in the written statement itse...

M/S. Vector Projects (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Offic ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in G.D.No.155/2012-13 and quash the goods detention notice dt.02.10.2012 issued therein.) 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 demanded by the authority concerned, who had passed 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 of the tax amount due, the amount o...

M/S. Jayapradha theatre Vs. Investment Trust of India, Rep. by Its Aut ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to grant of stay of all further proceedings in the above C.C.No.3633 of 2000; and (b) to grant dispense with the personal appearance of the accused 1 and 2 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and it is therefore further prayed that this Hon1ble Court may be pleased to call for the records concerned in C.C.No.3633 of 2000 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai -8 and quash the same. ORDER The petitioner has come forward with this petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.no.3633 of 2000 pending on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. 2. The facts of the case run as follows: The complainant is running a financial business. The accused availed loan under Hire Purchase agreement dated 31.3.1997 from the complainant. As per the agreement, the accused had to repay a sum or Rs.19,57,500/- in 36 monthly instalments. In order to clear the debt, ...