Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments
M/S. Vikash Trading Company, Represented by Its Proprietor, C.S. Bohar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the repsondent No.1, Designated Authority F.No.14/45/2010-DGAD dated 6.9.2012, 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 imports of Plain Gypsum Plaster Boards, originating in or exported from China PR, Indonesia, Thailand, and UAE and consequently direct the respondent No.1, Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Commerce), New Delhi to reconsider the submissions made by the petitioner in accordance with the law and issue a fresh disclosure statement in term of Rule 16 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. United Spirits Limited Vs. Henkel India Limited and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
(Prayer: Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13 December 2011 in O.A.Nos.764 to 766 of 2011 in C.S.No.617 of 2011.) COMMON JUDGMENT: K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. These two intra-court appeals are directed against the order and decreetal order dated 13 December 2011 in O.A.Nos.764 to 766 of 2011 in C.S.No.617 of 2011 dismissing the applications for interlocutary injunction during the pendency of the original suit. The Background to the Appeals: 2. The appellant is the successor-in-interest of M/s. Shaw Wallace & Company Limited. M/s. Shaw Wallace & Company Limited was merged with the appellant on the basis of a scheme sanctioned by the Honourable High Court of Calcutta vide its order dated 16 January 2009 and the order dated 29 May 2008 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karanataka. By virtue of the said merger, the appellant claims to have acquired the right, title and interes...
Tag this Judgment!S.Veerappan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
(Prayer:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of the petitioner's lands measuring an extent of 2.93 acres in survey NO.37/1 and 3.15 acres in survey No.37/1 of Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk and District have lapsed in view of the provisions under Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act 1896.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings, relating to an extent of 2.93 acres of land, in survey No.37/1 and 3.15 acres of land, in survey No.37/2, in Kondichettipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District, belonging to the petitioner, had lapsed, in view of the provisions contained in Section 11(A)...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ekambaram Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its Secretary Rev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order communicated in S.R.No.249/96C dated 4.3.2002 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the owner of 95 cents of land, in survey No.172/1 and 3 of Zamin Pallavaram village. It had been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner by way of a Will, dated 13.12.1973, executed by his father, Raji Naicker, bearing document No.27 of 1973. Accordingly, the petitioner had got 78 cents of land. By another Will, dated 9.6.1976, bearing document No.14 of 1976, 17 cents of land had been bequeathed to the petitioner, by his mother, Rajammal. As such, the petitioner, was in possession of a total extent of 95 cents of land, along with his wif...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Velusamy Vs. Palani Murugan Finance, Rep by Its Partner and Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order and decretal order dated 15.09.2005 and made in I.A.No.927 of 2005 in O.S.No.256 of 1998, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal.) 1. This memorandum of civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.09.2005 and made in I.A.No.927 of 2005 in O.S.No.256 of 1998, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.48,260/- along with subsequent interest. The revision petitioner has also contested the suit in filing his written statement on 17.12.2004. When the suit stood posted for trial on 14.10.2003, the revision petitioner was not able to appear and there was also no representation on his behalf before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court has passed an ex-parte decree on the same day itself, directing the revision petitioner to pay t...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Its Secretary to Government, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the respondents and quash the impugned order dated 19.05.2011 in Mu. Mu. No.1904/A5/98 and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner's service by relaxing the age if necessary from initial date of appointment grant terminal benefits, pension, periodical increments leave salary, selection and special grade pay and other attended benefits.) 1. The petitioner joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Guntur Elementary School at Chengalpattu pursuant to the order dated 03.11.1987 on contract basis. Though the petitioner was a Tamil Pandit, she was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher, since there was no candidate available with the secondary grade qualification. 2. The Government issued G.O. Ms. No.539, Education (MI) Department, dated 21.04.1986 for appointment of Tamil Pandit as Secondary Grade Teachers due to dearth...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narasimhan, Advocate Vs. R. Anantha Raman
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-2012
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- with 12% interest and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain with costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dated in CC.313/2010 dated 04.10.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.11.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this Commission made the following order A.K. ANNAMALAI, MEMBER The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant paid Rs.85,000/- in two instalments to the opposite party for construction of house in his plot at Tambaram and since the opposite party failed to construct the house and ...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramaniam Vs. Selvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
(Second Appeal filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.47 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.3), Virudhachalam, dated 29.06.2010 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyveli, dated 13.11.2009.) The defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The respondent in the Second Appeal filed the suit O.S. No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyveli for recovery of money due under the suit promissory note dated 13.11.2004 marked as Ex.A1. 2. The case of the respondent herein/plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 13.11.2004 and executed Ex.A1/Promissory Note, promising to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and thereafter, failed to pay any amount either towards interest or towards principal. 3. The defence plea of the appellant herein/defendant is that he did not borrow any amount much less Rs.2,...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jeppiar and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Inspector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the entire records in respect of FIR in Cr.No.679/2012 dated 06.08.2012 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners.) The petitioners are the Accused in Crime No. 679/2012 dated 06.08.2012 on the file of the first respondent and they have come forward with this petition to quash the FIR against them. 2. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. The allegations in the complaint runs as follows:- The defacto complainant along with other workers are engaged in construction work and that the construction work was undertaken by one Mr.Rajkumar who is the contractor and first accused and the actual construction is undertaken by Mr.Sudanandan, the mason (Maistry) the 2nd accused. The building was constructed as per the direction of the contractors and the mason who are the named accused and they were raising cement pillars and on 06.08.2012, the contractors and mason directe...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Natar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-2012
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award @ Decree dated 19.01.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No. 235 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principles Subordinate Judge), Chengalpattu.) In an accident, which occurred on 30.10.2007, the first respondent/claimant sustained injuries, for which, he has taken treatment in both Government and private hospitals. Ex.P1 – FIR has been registered against the rider of the Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 21 AY 3262, owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, in Cr.No. 593 of 2007, for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC., on the file of the Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station. Ex.P4 is the judgment delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chenalpattu in S.T.C.No. 68 of 2008, wherein, the driver of the offending vehicle, has admitted the offence and paid the fine. However, upon perusal of the same, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »