Chennai Court March 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.
Ms.Jothi Chemicals Vs. Ms. Madura Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.35 of 2005 dated 29/12/2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.146 of 2003 dated 9/3/2005 on the file of the Sub0-Court, Tuticorin.JUDGMENT1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.146 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Tuticorin is the appellant.2. As per Ex.B.3 tender, plaintiff firm (appellant) supplied burnt lime to the defendant Sugar Mills (respondent). The transactions were entered and payments were recorded in the books of accounts. Subsequently, plaintiff firm was dissolved and P.W.1 Nagoor Mohideen, became its sole proprietor owner (See Ex.A.1 release deed). Sailanathan, Manager, plaintiff's firm, due to his misappropriation was sacked. On 18/6/1999, plaintiff sent Ex.A.9 letter and Ex.A.10 telegram to the defendant that hereafter not to pay any amount to Sailanathan. The receipt was acknowledged by the defenda...
Varadhan Vs. Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
Kallakurichi. ...Respondent/Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi to take up, hear and dispose of the E.A.No.185 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2002 on merits within the time that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.O R D E R1. Considering the nature of relief prayed for in this revision, there is no need to issue notice to the respondent.2. The learned Additional Government Pleader (CS) Mr.M.Raja takes notice for the respondent and considering both parties the following order is passed: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the above E.A.No.185 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2002 was filed for payment out of Rs.7,05,183/- deposited into Court by the respondent as compensation by issuing a cheque and though the respondent was served in August 2011, the Court below is adjourning the case without passing any order and therefore a direction may be issu...
Ammaiyappan Vs. Thangamalai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
PrayerSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur dated 23.06.2005 in A.S.No.108 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur dated 06.08.2004 in O.S.No.188 of 2000.JUDGMENT1. The defendant in O.S.No.188 of 2000, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur is the appellant.2. Defendant and plaintiff are brothers. They are in textile business. Between them, there was supply of textiles on credit basis. Plaintiff maintained ledger accounts entering the credit sales and also the payments. According to plaintiff, as per Ledger Accounts (Exs.A.1, A.5 to A.8) in the transaction running between 01.06.1995 to 26.08.1997, defendant is liable to pay him Rs.1,22,854.05, after adjusting Rs.50,000/- by his brother making over a decree debt. Still he has to pay him Rs.1,22,854.05. As agreed, in the Panchayat, under (Ex....
Somasundaram Vs. P.Pavayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
COMMON JUDGMENT1. These appeals are focussed by the plaintiffs in the suits, as against the common judgement and decrees dated 11.7.1997 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, in O.S.Nos.311 of 1993 and 573 of 1996, which were for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for obtaining permanent injunction.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder 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 this appeal would run thus:A.S.No.921 of 1997:(a) The appellants herein, as plaintiffs, filed the suit O.S.No.311 of 1993 for specific performance based on the agreement to sell-Ex.A1 dated 24.2.1989, which emerged between the plaintiffs and the defendants, whereby, the latter agreed to sell in favour of the former the suit property for a total sale consideration to be calculated at the rate of Rs.6,00,000.00 per acre. ...
R.Deivendran Vs. the Collector.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the proceedings of the respondent in N.K.No.V2/14005/2006-1 dated 18.11.2006 and quash the same.ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the charge memo dated 18.11.2006 issued by the respondent.2.The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and was appointed as an Assistant initially. After working hard in the department, the petitioner was promoted to the level of Block Development Officer and in such capacity, he was working in Tuticorin Collectorate. Before such position, while he was working as Superintendent/Deputy Block Development Officer in Tamil Nadu Women Development Corporation, Tuticorin, he was served with a charge memo dated 09.03.2002 and was placed under suspension. The charges framed against the petitioner therein was that he attended a private function and had made adverse comments about the education policies...
Dr.Meera Thinakaran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
ORDER1. Whether surcharge, on the duty imposed under the Indian Stamp Act on the sale Certificate issued by the Recovery Officer under Chapter V of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 read with rule 65 of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961, can be levied?. This is, precisely, the question, which needs to be answered in this writ petition.2. The property bearing flat No.1079-A (ground floor), at Anna Nagar in Villivakkam village was brought for sale by the Recovery Officer attached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal No.II, Chennai as per the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 in DRC No.456 of 2001, as per the order made in T.A.No.434 of 1997. Public auction was held by the Recovery Officer on 28.09.2001, in order to recover the amount due to the Federal Bank, Thirumangalam, Chennai, from its erstwhile owner Mr.B.S.Jeyapandian. The petitioner was the successful bidder. The petitioner paid the enti...
Tvl.Affan Leathers Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in PDL/178/2010 dated 18.07.2011 and quash the same.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the registration of the petitioner, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, had been cancelled, without issuing a notice to the petitioner.3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that a notice had been sent to the petitioner, before the impugned order had been passed. However, the notice had been returned, as unserved.4.In such circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 18.07.2011, is set aside. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent, on 26.03.2012, along...
The Application No.1042 of 2012. Vs. Unknown
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
ORDER1. The Application No.1042 of 2012 has been filed to set aside the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by this Court in A.No.2536 of 2011.2. The Application No.2536 of 2011 has been filed to direct the respondents to furnish security for a sum of Rs.3,28,215.30 being the claim of the applicant arising under the Loan Agreement No.CE 18459 dated 19.01.2007 within a time stipulated by this Court and in case of default to order attachment before judgment of the movable properties of the 1st respondent more fully described in the Schedule A to the Judges Summons.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The applicant in A.No.1042 of 2012 has availed a loan to the tune of Rs.9,20,000/- from the respondent bank to purchase a Mobile Crane 12 x W bearing Registration No.TN 59 AL 9393 with Engine No.S433-685460 and Chassis No.166372 and as per the loan agreement, the applicant has to pay 35 equal instalments at the rate of Rs.31,300/- per month. Admittedly, the applicant has regularly paid up...
Ms.Sri Devi Gas Distributors Vs. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J)1. The writ petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal challenging the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.10447 of 2011 dated 1.11.2011. The appellant herein was granted distributorship under a Memorandum of Agreement dated 28.2.1989 for sale of Liquefied Petroleum Gas known as Indane in cylinders to household consumers and commercial consumers in the territory of Thuraiyur Town/Municipality. At that time, it was a proprietary concern. It was later converted into a partnership firm with the sister of the proprietrix being inducted as a partner. Admittedly, it was with the prior approval of the Corporation. Thus, fresh agreement was entered into on 18.7.1996 with the partnership firm on the same terms and conditions.2. A perusal of the distributorship agreement shows that under Clause 23 (c), the distributor is prohibited from entering into any arrangement, contract or understanding with any one without prior consent of the Corpo...
Texworth International Vs. the Commissioner of Customs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to assess Bill of Entry No.6075528 dated 23.02.2012, filed by the petitioner by allowing exemption from additional duty of customs (CVD) under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 as per final order Nos.941, 942 and 1109 of 2008 dated August 28, 2008 and September 29, 2008 and allow clearance of the subject goods in this writ petition as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2.The prayer sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondent to assess the Bill of Entry No.6075528, dated 23.02.2012, filed by the petitioner, by allowing exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), under Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004, as per the Final Order Nos.941, 942 and 1109 of 2008, dated 29.09. 2008.3.In ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »