Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

Nadigar Sangham Charitable Trust, Rep. by Its Managing Trustee, R. Sar ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S.Rules read with Clause 15 of the amended Letters patent, 1865 against the Order dated 8.10.2012 made in Application No.2757 of 2012 in C.S.(D) No.15568 of 2012.) R. BANUMATHI, J. Introductory:- Whether the lease deed executed by the South Indian Artists Association represented by its Chairman, granting long lease of its valuable property worth more than Rs.150 Crores and situated in the commercial hub of T.Nagar in Chennai, in favour of a Public Charitable Trust managed by the close relative of the Chairman, and the subsequent decision of the Managing Trustee, allegedly, in collusion with the Chairman of the Artists Association, to enter into a lease in the nature of a Development Agreement with a private cinema company for a pittance and with a first option to the builder to purchase the entire property, without following a transparent tender process and in a collusive and secret manner, and more particularly without ...

Npt Offset Press Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. the Designated Authority, t ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in W.P.No.5121 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent No.1 in Initiation Notification in F.No.14/7/2011-DGAD dated 13.6.2011, under the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, read with Section 9A and 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 , and to quash the same in respect of goods classified as Digital Offet Printing Plates (hereinafter referred to as "Digital Plates" or subject goods) originating in or exported from China PR and Japan and consequentially forbear the respondents from proceeding any further under the Intitiation Notification in F.No.14/7/2011-DGAD dated 13.6.2011. Prayer in W.P.No.10379 of 2012.: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respon...

S. Nandagopal Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Represented by Its Secretary ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in RC No.2474/MM3/2011, dated 5.6.2012, and quash the same.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been granted permission for the mining of silica sand, in an extent of 4.16.0 hectares of patta lands, in Survey No.46/1A and in the adjacent lands, in Elavur Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner, for a period of twenty years, commencing from 30.11.2001 to 29.11.2021. The lease deed had been executed on 30.11.2001. The petitioner had been carrying on mining operations, as per the rules and regulations applicable to the lease granted in his favour. While so, the mining operations had been stopped by the District Collecto...

Subbannan @ Kondalathar Vs. C. Palanisamy and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)529

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order and decretal order dated 15.07.2005 and made in I.A.No.723 of 2004 in O.S.No.144 of 2001, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.) 1. When the petition was taken up, this Court is able to found that the respondents 1 and 2 were duly served on 14.08.2012. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have not chosen to appear either in person or through their respective counsels. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is present. 2. It appears from the records that this memorandum of civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.07.2005 and made in I.A.No.723 of 2004 in O.S.No.144 of 2001, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi. 3. It is manifested from the records that the respondents 1 and 2 have filed the suit in O.S.No.144 of 2001 against the revision petitioner seeking the relief of perman...

K.Santhanam and Others Vs. S. Sampath

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 21.12.2011 in I.A.No.418 of 2011 in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu.) 1. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. 2. The revision petitioners filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Chingleput for partition and permanent injunction. The second defendant filed an application to permit him to pay the stamp duty on Ex.B20, a Koor Chit and that application was allowed and that order is challenged by the revision petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the court below erred in allowing the application filed by the second defendant viz., the respondent herein on the misconception that the document was already marked and the respondent herein is entitled to apply to the court for payment of deposit of stamp duty and penalty and the document Ex.B20 has not been marked in evidence and it is not duly stamped and it is not register...

indrani and Another Vs. A.P. Madhan and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Civil)885; 2013(2)MLJ380

(Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2004 made in A.S.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dharamapuri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2003 made in O.S.No.162 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Dharmapuri.) The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2001 seeking the relief of declaration, possession and damages. The plaintiffs claimed title by inheritance from his father. The suit was decreed, granting the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and the relief of damage was declined. The defendants' appeal was also dismissed and thereby the judgement of the trial court came to be confirmed. During the first appeal, the defendants filed petition under Order 41 Rule 27, producing the sale agreement dated 25.7.1987. This petition was heard along with the appeal and the petition was dismissed. 2....

M/S.Orchid Health Care (a Division O Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceutic ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent vide order F.No.195/603/10-RA dated 28.12.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant rebate claim made by the petitioner in repsect of the exports made by the petitioner.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 4. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a 100% Export Oriented Unit, engaged in the manuacture of export of bulk drugs and formulations. The petitioner is a registered manufacturer and it is liable to pay Excise Duty on the bulk drugs and formulations manufactured by it, unless such payment is specifically exempted. 3. It has been further stated that the Government of India has announced various exemptions from the payment of Excise and Customs Duty paya...

K. Periyasamy Vs. the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority, Sal ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the letter No.Na.Ka.No.10743-A4-2011 dated 27.01.2012 for conducting joint inspection on the route Omalur Bus Stand to Velalapatty Pirivu Road on the file of the respondent herein and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondent herein to conduct timing conference and issue the mini bus permit to the petitioner on the aforesaid route as applied for by the petitioner herein.) 1. The petitioner was granted mini bus permit to operate the bus in the route Omalur Bus stand to Vellalapatty Pirivu Road by an order dated 08.02.2006, issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Salem. Pursuant to the issuance of the permit, timing conference has to be held and the timing shall be prescribed for the operation of mini bus, but the same did not take place. Hence the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P. No.11491 of 2007...

K. Jayalakshmi Represented by their Power of Attorney Geetha Sundar an ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the land of the petitioners herein measuring 5220 Sq. ft. (4230+990 sq.ft) comprised in Survey No.20/2, Pallipattu Village, Chennai, does not attract the provisions of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1973.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that, originally, the land measuring an extent of 4420 square meters, comprised in T.S.No.20/2, Block-8 of Pallipattu Village, was owned and possessed by one Baby Ammal. She had acquired the said land from one R.Venkataramulu Chettiar, under a deed of settlement, dated 29.12.1952, registered as Document No.8/1953, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Saidapet. 3. It has been further stated that Baby Ammal had submitted a statement before the second respondent, on 13.7.1977, with regard to the extent of l...

Kamakshi Lamipack Private Limited, Rep.by Its Director Vs. the Governm ...

Court: Chennai

COMMON ORDER: All these Writ Petitions have been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to G.O.(Ms) No.79, Energy (C.3) Department, dated 11.07.2012, issued by the first respondent, culminating in the Circular Memo of the second respondent vide No.CFC/Rev/FC/Rev/AS-3/D.No./12/dated 12.07.2012, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner levying, demanding and/or collecting Cross Subsidy Charges from the petitioners for procuring energy from the third party sources so long as the Restriction and Control (R&C;) measures imposed by the respondents are in force. 2. Since all these Writ Petitions subsume a common question of law, they are being disposed of in common. For the sake of disposal, let me take the facts in W.P.No.22186 of 2012. 2.1. The petitioner viz., Indus Steels and Alloys Limited, is a company engaged in steel products. It has a High Tension Electricity Supply connection bearing HT SC ...