Chennai Court December 2012 Judgments

Dhevaraj Chordia Vs. Kayal Senthilnathan

Court: Chennai

Vinod k. Sharma, J. 1. Dhevaraj Chordia, the applicant has filed this application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being impleaded as defendant no.18 in C.S.No.23 of 2011. 2. The plaintiff / non applicant filed C.S.No.23 of 2011 praying therein as under: i. for declaration that the plaintiff is co-owner, therefore, is entitled for the use of all common areas / passage on all sides of the A & B schedule property as per the site plan and have free access to the common undivided areas; ii. for permanent injunction, restraining the 1st defendant from in any way encumbering or encroaching or exclusively using the common area more specifically mentioned in 'C' schedule and marked as C2; iii. for issuance of mandatory injunction, directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to remove the encroachment put up in the common area mentioned in 'C' schedule; iv. for permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from...

Hi Tech Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd.Rep.by Its Authorised Signatory S.Ga ...

Court: Chennai

VINOD K. SHARMA,J., 1. A.No.5249 of 2012 has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the O.S.Rules r/w Order 21 Rule 46B of the Code of Civil Procedure, to direct the third respondent / Garnishee to deposit a sum of Rs.28,92,97,280/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Crores Ninety Two Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty only), being the suit claim in this Court or to pay the said sum directly to the applicant / plaintiff, subject to the further direction of the Hon'ble Court from and out of the excess sale proceeds related to the sale of immovable property at Breeze Hotel situated at 850, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai as and when received by the third respondent. 2. A.No.5250 of 2012 has been moved under Order XIV Rule 8 of the O.S.Rules r/w Order 21 Rule 46A of CPC, to prohibit the third respondent / Garnishee from releasing any amount to the first and or second respondents out of the excess sale proceeds related to the sale of immovable property "Breeze Hotel" situated a...

M. Jayapal Vs. M.N. Sampath and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the judgment dated 27.02.2012 made in O.S.No.64 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J. 1. The first defendant is the appellant in this appeal before this Court. The plaintiff is the first respondent herein. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2012 in O.S.No.64 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the suit properties including the mining lease rights granted by the Tamil Nadu Government, to be divided into two equal shares in metes and bounds and allotting one such divided share to the plaintiff; directing the delivery of separate possession of the share so allotted to the plaintiff; restraining defendants-2 to 4 by a permanent injunction from in any way carrying on any quarrying operations in the suit lands; directing the asc...

M. Madhan Mohan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Principal Secretary t ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in G.O.Ms.No.68, Energy (C1) Department dated 30.08.2011 and Section 6 Declaration in G.O.Ms.No.76 Energy (C1) Department, dated 16.09.2011 and quash the same as arbitrary, ultra vires and against law and consequently forbear the respondents herein from in any manner proceeding with acquisition of the lands of the petitioner comprised in Survey No.116/1, 116/2, 117/13, 118/8, 118/9, 118/10, 119/7B, 119/9, 120/3A, 127/2, 128/1A, 128/1B, 128/2, 129/1, 130/2, 130/3, 130/4, 131/1, 131/2, 131/4, 132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 133/1, 133/2, 133/3, 133/5, 137/3, 138/6, 138/7A, 138/8A, 138/10A, 139/1, 139/4, 139/5A, 139/6A, 143/1A, 144/1, 144/2, 144/3, 145/1, 145/2, 146/1, 146/2, 147/1, 147/2, 147/3, 147/4, 148/1, 148/2, 148/3, 148/4...

A.M.M.Foundation Vs. the Secretary, Private School Fee Determination C ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other order in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the order dated 3.6.2011 Ref.30535 passed by the 1st Respondent and quash the same and all consequential proceedings.) R. BANUMATHI, J. Challenging the order passed by Private School Fee Determination Committee that it is not in conformity with Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009), writ petitioner, unaided private school has filed this writ petition. 2. A.M.M.Foundaltion is a Public Charitable Trust and the Trust is running various institutions including hospitals and polytechnic colleges in various parts of the State of Tamil Nadu. T.I.Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Ambattur, an unaided Private School is one of the institutions run by the petitioner Trust. In pursuance to the direction issued by the First Bench in P.B.Prince Gajendra Babu v...

Jecintha Vijayakumar Vs. the Department of School Education, Chennai a ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.04.2012 passed in Review Application No.19 of 2012.) M.Y. EQBAL, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.04.2012 passed in Review Application No.19 of 2012, which was filed to review the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in W.P.No.30253 of 2008. 2. The aforesaid writ petition viz., W.P.No.30253 of 2008 was filed by the review petitioner herein seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 4th respondent-School, relating to their letter dated 17.12.2008, terminating the services of the petitioner and quash the same. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.02.2009 on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Being not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.509 of 2009, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 22.04.2009 ...

Cce, Chennai - Iv Vs. M/S. Triveni Ayurvedic Research Pharmaceuticals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

P.G. Chacko In this appeal filed by the Department, the short question is whether the Ayurvedic soap manufactured by the respondent (assessee) and cleared under the brand name MEDIMIX during the period from August 1999 to April 2001 was classifiable under sub-heading 3401.12 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 directing nil rate of duty for the said period or classifiable under sub-heading 3401.19 of the said Schedule and chargeable to duty on MRP basis. 2. In a show-cause notice dated 13.6.2003, issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the basis of the results of the investigations conducted during November 2000 to April 2001, it was alleged that the assessee had manufactured ayurvedic bath soaps with the aid of power and had cleared the goods under the above brand name without payment of duty or complying with other provisions of the Central Excise Rules, though the product was classifiable under sub-heading 3401.19 during the aforesaid period. It was ...

G. Raja Vs. the Forest Range Officer, Pernambut Division and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)455; 2013(1)LW(Crl)450

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 22.02.2012 passed in C.M.P. No. 451 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.) 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham in C.M.P. No. 451 of 2012, by which, the application filed by him for return of vehicle under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the two wheeler – Hero Honda Splendor bearing Registration No. TN-23-AU 5491 and it was seized by the first respondent in connection with the case in W.L.O.R. No. 11 of 2009 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 39, 51 and 54 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). Pursuant to such seizure, the offence was compounded and the petitioner also paid the compounding fee to the Gudiyatham Rang...

Devaki and Another Vs. V.R. Kannappan

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No.5 of 2011 by the Principal Subordinate Judge and Appellate Authority, Coimbatore dated 25.11.2011 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1239 of 2006 by the II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 29.04.2010.) 1. The plaintiffs in the original suit are the appellants. They had filed the suit on the file of the court of II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore as O.S.No.1239/2006 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of re-conveyance. The suit was dismissed by the trial court by a judgment and decree dated 29.04.2010. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs before the lower appellate court, namely the court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore as A.S.No.5/2011 was also dismissed on 25.11.2011 and thereby the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit for specific performance was confirmed by the lower appellate court. Hence t...

Pramod Kumar Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry of Ho ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 3 to 5 from proceeding further with conducting inquiry or investigating offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in connection with the case registered in FIR in Rc.No.13(E)/2011-CBI/EOW/Chennai and pending on the file of the 5th respondent.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 3 to 5 from proceeding further with conducting inquiry or investigating offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in connection with the case registered in FIR Rc.No.13(E)/2011-CBI/EOW/Chennai, pending on the file of the 5th respondent. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows: (a) Petitioner is an All India Service Officer of Indian Police Service and has been allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre. He is facing an investigation ...