Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

S. MartIn Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle, Co ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent and quash the impugned order in DCIT/CC-I(3)/CBE/2012-13 dated 10.08.2012 and direct the 1st respondent to grant stay of collection of outstanding amount of Rs.7 75 34 990/- for the assessment year 2009-10 till the disposal of First Appeal.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the assessment order, dated 30.12.2011 had been passed by the 1st respondent, relating to the assessment year 2009-10, under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, in Appeal in ITA.No.268/11-12, dated 27.01.2012, before the 2nd respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had been granted tim...

S. Kumudham Vs. R. Rajendiran and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Civil)482

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order and decretal order dated 13.11.2009 made in I.A. No.877 of 2007 in O.S. No.118 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.) 1. The Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has projected the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 13.11.2009 in I.A. No.877 of 2009 in O.S. No.118 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore. 2. The learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, while passing order in I.A. No.877 of 2009 in O.S. No.118 of 2009 on 13.11.2009 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff) has inter alia observed that. 'it is settled law that the subsequent purchaser need not be impleaded in the pending proceedings and that the subsequent transaction is invalid under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act' and resultantly dismissed the Application without costs. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the...

Lalitha Vs. the District Collector, Kancheepuram District and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents in any manner preventing the Mullipakkam Panchayat from loading red soil gravel whose deposit is abundant in (i) Mullipakkam Chitheri Thangal, (ii) Thangal Varuvaikkal Odai (iii) Royamangalam Kulathu Thangal (iv) Poondi Keerai Thangal (v) Poondi Lake (vi) Otteri Manal Odai (vii) Royamangalam Kasivu Kuttai, for the purpose of implementing the projects undertaken by the Panchayat under the "Thai Scheme".) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 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 first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.07.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behal...

G. Venkatesan Vs. the Chairman Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ne ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to issue a CHA license in terms of regulation 9 of CHALR 2004 to the petitioner who had qualified the examinations conducted under the CHALR 1984.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had appeared in the Customs House Agent written examination and the oral examination, held under Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. It had been declared that the petitioner had qualified in the examinations. 3. It had been further stated that the grant of licence to the petitioner, as customs house agent is governed by the Customs House Agents, Licencing Regulations, 1984. The Regulations had been issued, originally, in the year, 1965. The said regulations had been repealed...

Salini and Others Vs. Meiyarasu and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(2)TNMAC838

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order made in M.C.O.P. No.209 of 2007 dated 03.09.2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore.) R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.6,59,000/- for the death of Aravind in a road traffic accident on 17.7.2005, Claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. 2. Brief facts are that on 17.7.2005 at about 7.30 A.M., deceased Aravind was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-37 AC 6498 on Karumatham patti-Kaniyur National Highways 47 road along with his friend Febin Philp. When they were proceeding on the extreme left side of the road, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-28 W 4647 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, Aravind and his friend Febin Philp sustained grievous injuries and died on the s...

M/S. Rehoboth Garment Process Rep. by Its Propreitor P. Joseph Rajasek ...

Court: Chennai

(Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, who confirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.240 of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee.) P.JosephRajasekar doing business in the name of M/s.Rehoboth Garment Process, who figured as the defendant in O.S.No.240 of 2008 before the trial Court (Sub Court), Poonamallee, is the appellant in the second appeal. Radha Lakshmi, who filed the above said suit as plaintiff, is the respondent herein. The suit was filed for directing the appellant/defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property, namely a shed bearing No.KR.9, Teleflo Mini Industrial Estate at No.3/88, Mount-Poonamallee Road, Ramapuram Village, Chennai - 89, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards rent for the month of June 2008, for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,000/- towards damages ...

K. Rukmani Vs. K.S. Ponnusamy Gounder

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ446

(This Appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 granted in O.S.No.330 of 2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Bhavani.) This appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.330 of 2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Bhavani. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder 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 respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,49,600/-, based on two suit promissory notes. (b) Challenging and impugning the genuineness of the suit pr notes, the defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit and denying the liability. (c) Up went the trial, wherein, the plaintiff-Ponnusamy Gounder examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W...

Naidu Sangam, Cuddalore and Others Vs. S. Ramiya Naidu and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Final order dated 30.11.2009 in I.A.No.94 of 2009 in O.S.No.33 of 2008 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.) The Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.11.2009 in I.A.No.94 of 2009 in O.S.No.33 of 2008 passed by the Learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. 2. The Learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, while passing orders in I.A.No.94 of 2009 in O.S.No.33 of 2008 on 30.11.2009, has, among other things, mentioned that '... The present petition sought for by the petitioners is to amend the plaint with regard to the subsequent event i.e., about the election held on 26.04.2009. The real question to be decided in the suit is whether the election held on 26.04.2009 is valid or not. The subsequent event of the election held on 26.04.2009 is not a real controversy to the suit etc.' Further, it ...

M/S. S.S.P. Washing Rep. by Its Proprietor K. Sekar Vs. Radha Lakshmi

Court: Chennai

(Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2012 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, who confirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 passed in O.S.No.8 of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee.) K.Sekardoing business in the name of M/s.S.S.P.Washing, who figured as the defendant in O.S.No.8 of 2009 before the trial Court (Sub Court), Poonamallee, is the appellant in the second appeal. Radha Lakshmi, who filed the above said suit as plaintiff, is the respondent herein. The suit was filed for directing the appellant/defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property, namely a shed bearing No.KR-1, Teleflo Mini Industrial Estate at No.3/88, Mount-Poonamallee Road, Ramapuram Village, Chennai - 89, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,550/- towards rent for the month of June 2008, for recovery of a sum of Rs.52,500/- towards damages for the wrongful use of th...

M/S. Yum Restaurant India Private Limited Represented by Its Senior Ma ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in G.D.No.86/2012-13 dated 29.09.2012 and quash the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2012 and further direct the respondent to release the goods detained in G.D.No.86/2012-13.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate 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.83,690/-, which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority concerned, while passing 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, w...