Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

P. Doraikannu Vs. P. Istalingam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)71; 2013(2)MLJ438

(Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram dated 27.02.2008 made in A.S.No.29 of 2007 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Munsif, Kancheepuram dated 18.10.2006 made in O.S.No.602 of 2000.) The plaintiff in the original suit is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendant in the original suit is the respondent in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in the suit. 2. The plaintiff Doraikannu and the defendant Istalingam are brothers. Admittedly, they were the members of Undivided Hindu Joint family, which became disrupted in the year 1994. By a registered deed of Partition dated 12.09.1994, the plaintiff and the defendant effected a division of the properties, which they owned jointly as joint family properties. The said document was registered as document No.643 of 1994 on the...

Anti Corruption Movement by Its General Secretary Vs. the Government o ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)CWC300

(Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, (i) directing the 4th Respondent to register FIR or cause, by issuing appropriate circular, registration of FIR by its subordinates, forthwith on receipt of information in writing from any person, disclosing commission of cognizable offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against any Government Servant of any category or any Public Servant as mandated under Section 154 of Cr.PC 1973, without expecting any orders from any authority including the 1st Respondent therefor and (ii) directing the 5th Respondent to take immediate action to remove the 6th Respondent from the Office of the President of Alalasundaram Village Panchayat, Kollidam Panchayat Union, Nagapattinam District, in exercise of power under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.) ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as...

C. Ayyadorai Vs. Karuppiah and Others

Court: Chennai

(Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code as against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.128 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, dated 30.06.2000, in confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.811 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, dated 15.04.1997.) The second defendant is the appellant. The second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.128 of 1997, dated 30.06.2000, by confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.811 of 1986, dated 15.04.1997. 2. The suit was filed by the deceased first plaintiff (R.Thaiyalnayaki Ammal) seeking for the relief of recovery of purchase money of Rs.1,163.52, from the first defendant or alternatively, in the event of the court declining such relief from the first defendant, the relief of recovery of possession from all the defendants. 3. The total extent of property is 71 cents covered in R.S.N...

M/S. Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Sri. T ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: W.A. Nos.1049 & 1051 of 2012: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.04.2012 passed in W.P.No.2305 of 2012. W.A. No.1050 of 2012: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.04.2012 passed in W.P.No.2917 of 2012. ) 1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 24.04.2012 passed in W.P.Nos.2305 and 2917 of 2012. 2. The writ petitions were filed challenging the impugned order passed by the District Collector, Tiruppur vide Na.Ka.No.14238/2010/J1 dated 18.07.2011. 3. The case of the writ petitioners was that they are agriculturists residing in Sundakampalayam and Nambiyamplayam Villages of Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District, owning agricultural lands in around their villages. Initially, the Executive Engineer, Transmission Line Construction, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) got approval from the Stat...

T.D. Panneer Selvam Vs. the Secretary to Government (Law Department) o ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling. for the records in relating to the Letter Ms.No.182/Admn/2009. Law Department, dated 28.7.2009 on the file of First Respondent and quash the same as arbitrarily illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent to renew the certificate of practice of the Petitioner issued on 3.5.1998.) 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order of the First Respondent in Ms.No.182/Admn/2009, Law Department, dated 28.7.2009 and to direct the Respondents to renew the certificate of practice of the Petitioner issued on 3.5.1998. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a Notary for three years from 3.5.1998 under the Notaries Act, 1952. The Petitioner’s notary certificate was renewed for a further period of three years till 2.5.1994. After expiry of the said period, Petitioner could not make renewal applic...

Alamelu Sockalingam Vs. V. Venkatachalam

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(6)CTC907

(O.P.No.858 of 2007 is preferred under Sections 3,7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and under Order XXI Rules 2 and 3 of O.S.Rules to declare the petitioner as the guardian of the Minor Child namely Nithya Sigapi Venkat aged about 2 years and 7 months.) The Original Petition is filed by the petitioner/ mother, seeking to declare her as the guardian of the minor child Nithya Sigapi Venkat. 2. The OP was admitted on 02.11.2007. However, when the matter came up on 09.02.2009, this Court allowed the OP and declared the petitioner as the guardian of the minor child. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application in A.No.3693 of 2009 to condone the delay of 150 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order dated 09.02.2009. This Court by an order dated 17.08.2009 condoned the delay and the earlier order was set aside by this Court on 24.10.2009. It was thereafter, the respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 30.06.2010. The respondent also filed written argu...

The Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai Vs. M/S. Sumangala Stee ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the common order dated 2.3.2012 passed in Final Order Nos. 175-176 of 2012 by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. It is seen from the orders of the Tribunal that the exporter herein claimed that the goods exported by them were alloy steels and hence, they attracted nil duty. However, based on the intelligence report and the verification of the shipping bills, show cause notices were issued, holding the view that the respondents were exporting non-alloy steel billets, attracting customs duty at 15% as per Notification 66/2008 dated 10.05.2008. Samples were drawn from the seaport consignments and the same were tested in National Metallurgical Laboratory. The report obtained, revealed boron content as less than 0.0008% to indicate that the items in question were non-alloy steel billets misdeclare...

B. Balachandran Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its Secretary ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ136

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the second respondent herein in Roc.No.22590/2007/OP3 dated 30.7.2007 and the consequent letter issued by the first respondent herein in Letter No.21075/Me.4/2001-4 dated 5.12.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to confer all the attendant and consequential benefits with due regards to the petitioner's seniority.) 1. The petitioner in this writ petition, who was formerly working as the Municipal Commissioner, Pollachi, and presently Commissioner of Trichy Corporation, challenges not only the notice asking his explanation on the enquiry, vide notice dated 5.12.2011, but also the earlier charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, dated 30.7.2007. 2. When the writ petition came up on 6.6.2012, this Court, while ordering notice of motio...

M/S. Henbe Exports, Rep. by Its Managing Partner and Others Vs. M/S. E ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)513

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the judgment dated 19.07.2007 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.A.No.276 of 2005, thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.9086 of 1999, convicting the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing the petitioners to undergo six months simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment.) 1. The revision petitioners herein / appellants / accused have preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1140 of 2007 against the judgment passed in C.A.No.276 of 2005, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the judgment of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.9086 of 1999. 2. The respondent / complainant'...

M.K. Elangovan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Coonoor Police Statio ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside and revise the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Coonoor in C.M.P.No.3154 of 2008 in S.T.R.No.390 of 2008, dated 15.07.2009.) 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein, viz., the Inspector of Police, attached to the Coonoor Police Station, Nilgiris District, had registered a criminal case in Crime No.934 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 186 and 353 of I.P.C. against the revision petitioner herein, viz., M.K.Elangovan. The defacto complainant, Mr.M.P.Janarthanam, Personal Assistant to the Assistant Collector, Coonoor, has stated in his complaint that on 20.09.2007 an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Coonoor under Section 138 of Criminal Procedure Code and at that point of time, the defacto complainant recorded the evidence of one Mr.Penthose, President of Kodanad Panchayat, who is a petitioner in the said case. The revision petitio...