Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.Sivakumar Vs. Thiru.K.Soundarrajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act to commit and punish the Respondent for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court dated 22.7.2011 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 in W.A.(MD)No.684 of 2011.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J)1. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner was already disposed of on 1.2.2012. The present Contempt Petition arises out of the order passed in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 in W.A.(MD)No.684 of 2011.2. It is stated by the contemner that the petitioner was transferred from Palani Branch to Kavunthapadi Branch of the respondent Transport Corporation on administrative reasons by an order dated 29.6.2011 and he was relieved from the duty on 30.6.2011 but the petitioner refused to receive the transfer order as well as the relieving order and hence, the orders were placed on Notice Board as well as sent by Registered Post to the writ petitioner on 6.7.2011, at No.126, Karur ...
Mr.Ashok Sarrangan Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent pertaining to proceeding No.A4/67895/11-194 dated 20.01.2012 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's objections dated 1.2.2012.ORDER1. Mr.M.L.Mahendran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is a Business Consultant. He has been rendering professional services for corporate industries. He has been operating from his principal place of business at Pondicherry. However, he has been frequently visiting various places in the state of Tamil Nadu, using his SKODA car, bearing Registration No.PYO1 BM 2266. Whileso, the respondent has issued the impugned order a...
Ramamirtham Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
The present Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladuturai in A.S.No.89 of 1998 dated 26.10.1998 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Mayiladuturai in O.S.No.973 of 1986 dated 03.01.1995.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellants/Defendants have filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.1998 in A.S.No.89 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladuturai in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.1995 in O.S.No.973 of 1986 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Mayiladuturai.2.The 1st Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Mayiladuturai, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.89 of 1998, on 26.10.1998, has, inter alia opined that as per Ex.A.1 Sale Deed dated 26.01.1928, it is seen that the Respondent/Plaintiff's grandfather has half share right in the suit property and also, that as per Ex.A.3, the Town Survey Field Register Book Extract...
Ms.Pacificorp (Hk) Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Customs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to permit re-shipment/re-export of the cargo i.e. 854 kgs of imitation stones in 39 cartons covered under Master Airway Bill No.16047231612 dated 16.9.2010, issued by the shipper DACHSCR Hong Kong Limited, Hong Kong, in the control and custody of respondents herein.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner company, which is operating from Hongkong, is an importer and exporter of various commodities, such as imitation stones, artificial stones and other such products. During the course of its business the petitioner had shipped one consignment of Imitation Glass stones, in 39 cartons, weighing 854 kilograms. The consignment was sent on the orders placed by M/s.Sky Way Corporation, Jaipur. The said goods had arrived at the Ai...
B.Ramachandran Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order of dismissal issued by the second respondent in proceeding dated 23.11.1998 and the impugned order of the Board issued by the then President of the second respondent Stores in proceeding dated 20.5.2001 and the impugned Revision Order passed by the first respondent in Proc.No.Na.Ka.8552/01 dated 3.1.2002 and quash these orders and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages and other consequential service benefits.O R D E R1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order of dismissal issued by the second respondent in proceeding dated 23.11.1998 and the impugned order of the Board issued by the then President of the second respondent Stores in proceeding dated 20.5.2001 a...
Arumugavel Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal dated 07.01.2012 within the date fixed by this Court.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent, to dispose of the appeal, dated 07.01.2012, filed by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within the period fixed by this Court.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal, dated 07.01.2012, on merits, within a specified period.3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, have no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal...
P.Gnanasekaran Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
PRAYERWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to register the vehicle vehicle TATA 410 Model bearing Temporary Registration No.TN 59 TMP 23599, dated 19.09.2011.COMMON ORDER1. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions purchased TATA SFC 410 and the same was temporarily registered before the authorities concerned. Thereafter, the said vehicles were taken by the petitioners for building its body and on completion of the same, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for registration of the vehicles in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and the Rules framed therein. However, it was not registered by the respondents inspite of being informed that the similar vehicles were registered and certificates of registratio...
The Divisional Manager Vs. R.Malliga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 9.1.2009 made in MCOP.No.6/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar.JUDGEMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vellore against the Judgement and Decree dated 9.1.2009 made in MCOP.No.6/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cheyyar, thereby awarding a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimants, who are the daughter and son of the deceased Muniyammal and directing both the Insured and the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.2. The admitted facts are that the accident took place on 5.12.006 on 1.00 p.m. in Periakolappalur Village Koot Road in Vandavasi Taluk, when the deceased was standing opposite to Kasi Shop, the Motor Vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-25-C-7392 driven by its driver in Periakolappalur Koot Road f...
Tvl.Anil Sales Corporation Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent's Goods detention notice dated 6.2.2012 bearing No.GD.No.5300/11-12 and subsequent compounding notice dated 7.2.2012 bearing GD.No.5300/2011-12 of Respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 286 of Constitution of India with consequential direction to the Respondents to release the detained imported goods.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed:i) The petitioner shall pay Rs.1,99,882/-, which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority concerned, while passing the det...
C.Nagamanickaya Vs. K.Syamanthakamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2012
COMMON JUDGMENT1. These two appeals are focussed by the defendants as against the common judgment and decrees dated 30.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court No.I] Chennai in O.S.Nos.12891 and 12960 of 1996 respectively.2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two appeals would run thus:The plaintiffs filed two suits, relating to one big property, by citing almost each half of it in the suits with the following prayer:O.S.No.12891 of 1996:- to pass judgment and decree as against the defendants -a] declaring that the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 to 17 to and in favour of 18th defendant under registered document No.1028/95 dated 01.09.1995 of the suit property belong to the Chetpet Subbadramma Trust, bearing Old Door No.34 and New No.48, now comb...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »