Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

M/S. Southern Boilers and Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Man ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus and call for the records pertaining to the impugned order-in-stay petition No.11/2012 (M-II) dated 06.11.2012 in A.No.51/2011 (M-II) passed by the first respondent and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal No.51/2011 (M-II) without insisting on any pre-deposit of duty.) This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus and call for the records pertaining to the impugned order-in-stay petition No.11/2012 (M-II) dated 06.11.2012 in A.No.51/2011 (M-II) passed by the first respondent and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal No.51/2011 (M-II) without insisting on any pre-deposit of duty. 2. Mr.Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the Customs and Central Excise, takes notice for the respondents. 3. The Writ Petition has been f...

Andal and Others Vs. Selvaraji Ammal and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decretal order dated 18.10.2005 and made in I.A.No.71 of 2005 in O.S.No.47 of 1996on the file of the learned District Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Portonovao and restore the suit.) 1. This memorandum of civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.47 of 1996. It is manifested from the records that the suit in O.S.No.47 of 1996 appears to have been filed by the revision petitioners against the respondents herein seeking the relief of partition. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff had passed away and subsequently, the revision petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff were impleaded. 2. It is obvious to note that excepting R2 who is the defendant in the suit, other defendants remained ex-parte. However, the suit was dismissed for non prosecution on 31.07.2002. For the pu...

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Villupuram Vs. K.S. ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 10.01.2011 made in W.P.No.6849 of 2002 on the file of this Court.) R. BANUMATHI, J. Being aggrieved by allowing the Writ Petition (10.1.2011) quashing the Award in I.D. No.385 of 2001 dated 13.8.2011 and directing reinstatement of 1st Respondent with 25% back wages, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts: By the order dated 24.3.1984, 1st Respondent was appointed as Inspector on Probation w.e.f. 31.12.1983. Services of 1st Respondent as Inspector Grade - I was confirmed by the Appellant by the order dated 12.1.1985 w.e.f. 01.1.1985. Appointment of 1st Respondent was governed by Development Staff Scheme, 1976 and also by General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 which deals with service conditions of the employee working in GIC of India and its subsidiaries. According to Development Staff Scheme, 1st Respo...

M/S. Eden Exports Company Rep by Its Partner Vs. Union of India, Rep b ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013WLR1; 2013(1)CWC378

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.25406 of 2009, dated 20.08.2010.) COMMON JUDGMENT ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J 1. All the writ appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.16908 of 2009 & etc. batch, dated 20.08.2010. Most of the writ petitions were filed challenging various provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Central Act 27 of 2006) as unconstitutional. Some writ petitions were filed challenging the orders passed by the Facilitation Council and the notices issued by the said Council. Since the issues involved in all these matters are intrinsically interconnected, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In most of all these writ appeals and the writ petitions, some of the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Central Act 27 of 2006) (in short "MSMED Act") are challenge...

M. Indrani Vs. the Principal Secretary / Commercial of Commercial Taxe ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(5)LLN768; 2013(1)MLJ123

(PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.) The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings passed by the second respondent / the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Erode, in Na.Ka.No.4311/2008/A1, dated 30.07.2012, ordering a recovery of Rs.2,99,807/-, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of Rs.1,47,636/- due to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Typist on temporary basis from 16.03.1991. She possessed qualification of typewriting higher in English and Tamil and she also passed the District Office Manual test. 3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.2266 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation of her services. On abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to the file of this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.26897 of 2...

Rudramurthy Vs. the Inspector of Police and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)25; 2013(1)LW(Cri)154; 2013(1)MWN(Cr)72

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.11.2011 passed in C.M.P. No. 3067 of 2011 in C.C. No. 74 of 2011 dated 02.11.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram.) 1. The petitioner, who is the defacto complainant in C.C. No. 74 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram, has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2011 passed in C.M.P. No. 3067 of 2011 in C.C. No. 74 of 2011, by which, his application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead the third respondent herein as one of the accused in the calander case was dismissed by the Court below. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2010 at about 11.30 am, in the national highway leading to Chennai from Vellore, the father of the petitioner herein namely Deivasigamani was riding the TVS 50 motor cycle bearing Registration No. MYK 8782. When the motor cycle was ...

Gidla Satyanarayana Vs. Union of India, Rep.by the Government of Puduc ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 4th respondent in respect of O.A.No.227 of 2010, dated 2.11.2011 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of Police with effect from the date on which the other candidates were appointed with all other consequential benefits, including arrears of wages, seniority etc. M.P.No.2 of 2012 has also been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondents as respondents 5 to 19 in the writ petition.) ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The petitioner, working as constable and belonging to Scheduled Caste, has applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, pursuant to the Notification dated 15.12.2005 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 for filling up the notified ten vacancies of Sub Inspector of Police. The w...

Sarathamani and Another Vs. Chellammal @ Thangammal and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)113

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.11.2010 made in I.A.No.868 of 2010 in O.S.No.358 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.) 1. Though the respondents 5 to 18 were served and the names of the respondents 5 to 18 appeared in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through a counsel and hence, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition against 20 defendants and according to the plaintiffs, the partition is sought for in respect of the properties belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4. The defendants 5 to 20 are impleaded on the ground that they are the co-pattadhars and they are only the formal parties. The defendants 10 and 12 have died and both of them were already set exparte and therefore, the re...

Venkatesh Vs. Soumiya

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the petition pending before Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur in H.M.O.P.No.361 of 2011, to transfer the same on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, for joint trial along with H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2012.) 1. The petitioner/husband has filed the above transfer petition to withdraw he petition in in H.M.O.P.No.361 of 2011, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur and to transfer the same to the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, for joint trial along with H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2012. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed in H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2012, on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, against the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned counsel further submits that both the spouses had loved each other and married on 20.06.2011 at Nambiyur Village, in Erode District. Subsequently, t...

Praveenkumar Vs. the Honghong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)213; 2013(1)LW747

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 3.3.2005 and made in I.A. No.19268 of 2004 in O.S. No.3206 of 2004, on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. Impugning the fair and decreetal Order dated 3.3.2005 and made in I.A. No.19268 of 2004 in O.S. No.3206 of 2004, on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, this Memorandum of Civil Revision is filled by the Revision Petitioner. 2. The Respondent herein has filed a Suit in O.S.No.3206 of 2004, under Order 37, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as against the Revision Petition herein on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai claiming a sum of Rs.4,19,761/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the said amount, from the date of Plaint till the date of realization. 3. The Revision Petitioner herein has filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No.19268 of 2004, under Order 37, Rule 3, C.P.C., on the file of the above said Co...