Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

M/S. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Bharat ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order passed in C.A.No.322 of 2003, dated 10.03.2006 by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, modified the sentence passed by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015 in C.C.No.385 of 1998, dated 22.09.2003.) 1. The respondent herein / complainant had arranged inter-corporate loan of a sum of Rs.5 Crores to the accused firm. In order to discharge the said loan, the revision petitioner herein / accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs, dated 10.11.1997, as a part payment of the said loan, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Teynampet Branch, Chennai to and in favour of the complainant firm. The said cheque was presented by the complainant for collection in their bank, viz., Hongkong Bank, Kasthuri Bai Gandhi Marg Branch, New Delhi, the same was returned with an endorsement stating "insufficiency of funds" on 12.12.1997. Hence, the complainant firm had issued ...

Microweb Enterprises Pvt Ltd. Represented by Its President Ram Singh A ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of directing the Respondent to assess Bills of Entry No.8120847 dated 04.10.2012, 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.) 1. 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 the Bill of Entry No.8120847, dated 04.10.2012, 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 1...

A.E. StalIn Gurumurthy and Others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ231

(PRAYER in W.P.Nos.27588 to 27590/2010 and W.P.25842/ 2011: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the 1st Respondent, quash the order of the 1st Respondent Tribunal passed in O.A.Nos.917, 926, 906 and 916 of 2009 respectively dated 28.10.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law in so far as rejecting the prayer restore the pay as fixed by the 5th Respondent in its proceedings No.8(3)(1)/2008/ES/ 2173 dated 26.9.2008 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the pay as fixed by the 5th Respondent in its proceedings No.8(3)(1)/2008/ES/2173 dated 26.9.2008 with all consequential benefits. PRAYER IN W.P.Nos.19653 to 19655 of 2011 and W.P.No.21100 of 2011: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tr...

C. Santhini Vs. the Director of School Education and Another

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30.08.2010 in W.P.No.42731 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.6000 of 1999), passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court.) M. VENUGOPAL, J. The Appellant/Petitioner has focussed the present Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 30.08.2010 in W.P.No.42731 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.6000 of 1999), passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The Learned Single Judge while passing the orders on 30.08.2010 in W.P.No.42731 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.6000 of 1999), in paragraph 10, has, inter alia, stated that 'the frequent postal remarks clearly indicate that the petitioner was not at her residence and her deliberate failure to present any petition/representation to the department seeking revocation of suspension order or seeking reinstatement or seeking payment of subsistence allowance clearly disqualifies the petitioner from making the prayer for payment of subsistence allowance. No doubt the respondent should have p...

Gupta Hair Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer (Ct) (Enf ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in W.P.No.29315 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the case from the file of the first respondent herein and quash the compounding notice passed by the first respondent dated 12.10.2012 in GD No.39/2012-13 and quash the same. W.P.No.29316 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the case from the file of the first respondent herein, quash the impugned order of detention in GD No.39/2012-13, dated 9.10.2012 passed by the first respondent, direct the first and second respondents to release the goods.) Common Order: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 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 Cour...

Amritha Engineering Company, Rep by Its Authorised Signatory Vs. the G ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the request of the petitioner dated 13.09.2012 and consequently issue an order of relaxation of Rule 38(b) of the Tamil Nadu Miner and Mineral Rules and to permit the petitioner to transport 12000 units of sand for the on going projects for Indian Satelliate Research Organisation, (ISRO), Trivandrum.) 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 respondents had placed before this Court a communication, dated 05.10.2012, issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMC.1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai, which is as follows: "I am directed to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform that the Amirtha Engineering Company has sent their representation dated 14.09.2012 rece...

Masammal and Others Vs. Kamalam and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam in A.S.No.27 of 2004 reversing the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sathiyamangalam in O.S.No.54 of 1997.) Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam in A.S.No.27 of 2004 reversing the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sathiyamangalam in O.S.No.54 of 1997, this second appeal is focussed by the defendants 3, 4 and 5. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: a] The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition by putt...

M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Vellore Vs. K ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ450; 2013(1)TNMAC428

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.09.2010 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.) The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Appellant/2nd Respondent/Insurance Company, being aggrieved against the award dated 04.09.2010 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham. 2.TheRespondents 1 to 6 have filed a Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District claiming a compensation of Rs.32,00,000/- for the death of Kannaiyan against the Appellant/Insurance Company, 7th & 8th Respondents/1st & 3rd Respondents with a direction to pay the same with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident along with costs. The short facts leading to the present Appeal a...

M/S. Bharat Matrimony.Com Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director J. Murugavel ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in Stay Order No.739 of 2006 dated 23.6.06 and the consequential Final Order No.669 of 2006 dated 31.7.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take up the appeal and dispose of the same on merits without insisting on pre deposit at an early date. 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 the petitioner would comply with the conditions imposed by the second respondent Tribunal, by its order, dated 23.6.2006, made in Stay Order No.739 of 2006, within the period specified by this Court. In such circumstances, the second respondent Tribunal may be directed to take on f...

Selvakumar Vs. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Of ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)593

(Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri in proceedings No. Na.Ka.139/2012/M.C.B./2012/A2 dated 10.05.2012.) The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case as against the final order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer in the proceedings initiated by him under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C). In and by the said order dated 10.05.2012, the first respondent directed the authorities concerned to take appropriate action to cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 10.05.2012 of the first respondent mainly on the ground that the order dated 10.05.2012 was passed in violation of Section 145 (i) of Cr.P.C. inasmuch as there was no preliminary order passed by the first respondent before resorting to pass a final order. Accordin...