Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
Mr.V.Anthony Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the petitioner the sum of Rs.17,952/- being the difference in gratuity after calculation of the gratuity or D.C.R.G., in accordance to the calculation provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, with interest from the date the same has become due.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the petitioner the sum of Rs.17,952/- being the difference in gratuity after calculation of the gratuity or D.C.R.G., in accordance to the calculation provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, with interest from the date the same has become due.2. Though the writ petition has been filed for the relief as above, learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that a similar issue was considered by this Court and an order has been passed in W.P.(MD)No.33704 of 2002 dated 4.3.2011. In...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Million Fashions Vs. the Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to issue Show Cause Notice and adjudicate the issue in a time bound manner.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the investigation, enquiry and adjudication, relating to the alleged misdeclaration of goods, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of six months from today.3. In view of the said submissions, the respondents are directed to complete the process of investigation, enquiry and adjudication, with regard to misdeclaration of goods, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to cooperate, fully, in the said process. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M...
Tag this Judgment!J.AnithA. Vs. J.Prakash
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
PRAYER IN CMA Nos.902 & 903 / 2010 .: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, dated 21.12.2009 in O.P.Nos.1985 of 2001, 2268 of 2007.PRAYER IN CMA No.2407 / 2010 .: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 on the file of the Principal Family Court at Chennai in so far it is against the appellant in not granting the Dissolution of Marriage on the grounds of Nullity and Mental Disorder.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.MOHAN RAM, J.)1. CMA Nos.902and 903 of 2010 have been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.1985 of 2002 and O.P.No.2268 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, respectively. CMA No.2407 of 2010 has been filed by the husband against the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.1985 of 2002 as far a...
Tag this Judgment!L.Narayanan Vs. Munuswamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
The present Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Judge (Third Additional), Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District made in A.S.No.8 of 1998 dated 11.02.2000, confirming the trial Court Judgment and Decree of the Learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri in O.S.No.324 of 1992 dated 29.11.1997.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellants/Plaintiffs have focused the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2000 in A.S.No.8 of 1998 passed by the Learned III Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.1997 in O.S.No.324 of 1992 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri.2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned III Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, while dismissing the Appeal, has opined that 'in the present case during the year 1962, the 1st Plaintiff (1st Appellant in A.S.No.8 of 1998) (since deceased) has left the house stating that he does not require any share in the properties...
Tag this Judgment!Muthulakshmi at Baby Vs. Vedavalli.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Prayer in S.A.No.96 of 2012: Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.06.2001 in A.S.No.189 of 2000 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 07.11.2000 in O.S.No.163 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.Prayer in Cross Obj.No.9 of 2012: Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.06.2001 in A.S.No.189 of 2000 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 07.11.2000 in O.S.No.163 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.COMMON JUDGMENT1. The Appellants/Plaintiffs have focussed this Second Appeal adverting upon the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam in A.S.No.189 of 2000 dated 22.06.2001 in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 07.11.2000 in O.S.No.163 o...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Anand Impex Vs. the Commissioner of Customs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Prayer in W.P.No.21732 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to assess and clear the goods imported by the petitioner hereby covered by Bill of Entry No.3740944, dated 8.6.2011, comprising of 118 units of secondhand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines, by adequately safeguarding the interest of the petitioner by issuing appropriate detention certificate to avoid payment of detention and demurrage charges in terms of Regulation 6(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009.COMMON ORDER1. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioners had imported second hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines, imported under the various Bills of Entry. However, the customs officers concerned, the respondents herein, had detained the goods in question,...
Tag this Judgment!M.Suresh Vs. the Revenue Inspector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 3 herein to release the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-70 C-3246 in Chassis No.NAPL616TRAC to the petitioner. (Prayer Amended vide order of this Court, dated 27.2.2012, made in M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No.3713 of 2012)O R D E R1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 3 herein, to release the Tractor, bearing Registration No.TN-70 C-3246 Chassis No.NAPL616TRAC, to the petitioner.2. In view of the averments made by the petitioner and taking into consideration the relief prayed for by the petitioner and since similar orders have been passed by this Court, the third respondent is directed to release the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-70 C-3246, to the petitioner, on his fulfilling the following conditions:-(i) The petitioner shall establish the ownership of the vehicle by producing the n...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.Babu Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.32 of 2012/Minerals, dated 13.2.2012, on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on the quarry operation for the remaining lease period as per the lease order in Na.Ka.No.313/2008/Minerals, dated 3.4.2008, on the file of the first respondent.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned show cause notice, dated 13.2.2012, had been issued by first respondent, without furnishing a copy of the report of the second respondent, based on which the said show cause notice had been issued.3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appear...
Tag this Judgment!Albert Vs. M.Y. Mohammed Syed Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1973 to set aside the order dated 28.1.2008 in R.C.A.No.32 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Ooty, confirming the order dated 29.8.2007 in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Coonoor.O R D E R1. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Coonoor for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and owner's occupation.2. The case of the respondent/ landlord was that the property originally belonged to one Annaswamy and from the legal heirs of Annaswamy he purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 15.2.2000 and even before the sale, his vendors informed the revision petitioner to attorn tenancy in favour of the respondent and even after the purchase the respondent sent a letter to the revision petitioner informing abou...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmigu Aabathsahaya Vs. the Principal Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to convey the temple property bearing S. No.454 to an extent of 54.50 acres of Punjai land situated on the Sriperumbudur Singa Perumal Koil 6 lane road to the 4th respondent in any manner.ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, prohibiting the respondents from conveying the temple property bearing S. No.454 to an extent of 54.50 acres of Punjai land situated on the Sriperumbudur Singa Perumal Koil 6 lane road to the 4th respondent in any manner.2. Initially the petitioner had impleaded only the Managing Director of Apollo Tyres Limited as fourth respondent.3. Subsequently, the petitioner impleaded the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition and the Principal Secretary, Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, as respondents 5 and 6. However, there are no averments in the affidavit against the responde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »