Chennai Court February 2012 Judgments
Ms.Malladi Drugs Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct)
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 Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TIN No.33500902741/2006-07 dated 23.01.2012 and quash the same. W.P.No.2631 of 2012:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TIN No.33500902741/2007-08 dated 23.01.2012 and quash the same. W.P.No.2632 of 2012:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TIN No.33500902741/2008-09 dated 23.01.2012 and quash the same. W.P.No.2633 of 2012:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in TIN No.33500902741/2009-10 dated 23.01.2012 and quash the same.COMMON OR...
Tag this Judgment!S.N.Arunachalam and Sons Vs. the Superintending Engineer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 4.10.2001 in No.554/2001 & 1724/2001 passed by the Customs and Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, southern Zonal Branch, Chennai and order dated 5.9.2002 in No.C.No.IV/16/44/2002/TRC passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, quash the same.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 4.10.2001 in No.554/2001 & 1724/2001 passed by the Customs and Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, southern Zonal Branch, Chennai and order dated 5.9.2002 in No.C.No.IV/16/44/2002/TRC passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, quash the same.2. This writ petition is filed challenging the final order of the Tribunal in No.1724 of 2001 dismissing the appeal on merits and for consequential order passed by ...
Tag this Judgment!P.Sundararajan Vs. the Registrar [Vigilance]
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 respondent to commence a statutory investigation by registering an FIR on his complaint dated 18.08.2011 and submit a preliminary report about the alleged bribe-tapes and financial transactions discussed in the tapes, and if the report confirms payment of bribes paid to the trial Judge by the accused, then to order a re-trial of Sessions Case No.94 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry by any other Judge in Pondicherry.O R D E RK.N.BASHA, J.1. This petition is posted before this Court as specially ordered matter in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the matter relating to a Judicial Officer is to be heard only by a Division Bench as per the procedure followed by this Court and hence, the writ petition is before this Bench as per the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. By consent of both sides, the writ p...
Tag this Judgment!K.Gnanasekar Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to return the vehicle Car TATA Indica TN-05-X-6670 to the petitioner.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that a notice, dated 23.12.2011, had been issued to one P.Sivakumar, the owner of the vehicle in question, asking him to show cause as to why the said vehicle should not be confiscated, under Section 14(4) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937.3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is the present owner of the vehicle in question, as he had purchased the said vehicle from P.Sivakumar. Therefore, he had submitted that he would appear before the second respondent, along with the relevant document...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Education Officer Vs. Mr.K.S.Palanichamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.155 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem and quash the same as the same is made on dishonest, malafide and illegal.COMON ORDER1. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.29201 of 2011 are the accused 1 and 2 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.27638 of 2011 are the accused 3 and 4 in C.C.No.155 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem. Seeking to quash the said case, the petitioners have come up with these two petitions.2.The facts of the case would be as follows:-The respondent is the complainant in the said case. He was the President of the "Parents Teachers Association" of Kugai Municipal Girls Higher Secondary School at Salem, during the academic year 2009-2010. There were complaints to the District Collector, Salem and the Director of School Education from the public that...
Tag this Judgment!Jameela Bee Vs. Ragupathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Civil Revision Petition No.2512 of 2009 against the order dated 5.8.2009 in E.P.No.22 of 2008 in O.S.No.69 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Gingee.Civil Revision Petition No.2590 of 2010 against the order dated 26.7.2010 in E.A.No.386 of 2009 in E.P.No.22 of 2008 in O.S.No.69 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Gingee.COMMON ORDER1. The first defendant in O.S.No.69 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Tindivanam is the revision petitioner in both the revisions.2. The first respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.69 of 1986 on the file of the Sub Court, Tindivanam for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendants in that suit. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 14.12.1987 and the plaintiff was declared as owner of the suit property and the first defendant was directed to hand over vacant possession within a period of two months. The first appeal filed in A.S.No.196 of 1988 on the file of the District ...
Tag this Judgment!Panchasaram Singh at Sarangan Vs. Tmt.Girija
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Special court) Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District.JUDGMENT1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that the deceased-Nanbai, was aged 37 years, eking out her livelihood by making wire basket and wire garland braider, met with an accident on 22.6.2002 and died.2. The first claimant is the husband and the claimants 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. They filed the petition claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is averred in the petition that at about 11.00 p.m. on the night hours of 22.6.2002, when the deceased was engaged in her work making baskets etc., in fron...
Tag this Judgment!K.Ramamoorthy Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the second and the third respondent from passing orders on representation dated 27.12.2010 and 3.1.2011, made by the petitioner and proceedings further with by implementing the representation dated 27.12.2010 and 3.1.2011, made by the petitioner herein. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam For Respondents : Mr.M.L.Mahendran Government AdvocateO R D E R1. Today, when these writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the writ petitions had become infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.2. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and in view of the endorsement made, the writ petitions are dismissed, as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
Tag this Judgment!P.Lingappan Vs. Subbulakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Civil Revision petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the order dated 12.6.2006 passed in R.C.A.No.19 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority) Coimbatore, confirming the order of eviction dated 7.1.2003 passed in R.C.O.P.No.177 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller),Coimbatore.O R D E R1. This revision is filed against the fair and decretal order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.19 of 2003 dated 12.6.2006 in confirming the fair and decretal order passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.177 of 2002 dated 7.1.2003.2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord before the learned Rent Controller.3. The landlord filed the petition against the tenant for eviction of the tenant from the premises described in the petition under Section 10(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Nachayee Vs. the State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 23.02.2011 in C.C.No.57 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai and set aside the same.ORDER1. Heard the submissions made by Mr.T.Antony Arulraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the first respondent (State) and Mr.N.Kannan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.2.This criminal revision case has been listed today for admission. The de- facto complainant/injured, who has deposed in the trial court as PW1, has come forward with the present criminal revision case against the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial court on 23.02.2011 in C.C.No.57 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai.3.Based on the information furnished by PW1 under Ex.P1 statement, a case was registered on the file of Mayanoor Police station, Karur Dist...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »