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.
Christry Amirthakani Vs. Joseph Pandiaraj.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
PrayerCriminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying this Court to call for the records in C.C.No.82 of 2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, dated 20.12.2011 and to set aside the same.JUDGMENT1. The respondents 1 and 2 were prosecuted before the Court below, namely the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam in C.C.No.82 of 2005, for an alleged offence under Section 420 I.P.C. The said case was instituted on a private complaint filed by the appellant herein. After following the procedure prescribed for taking cognizance of the offence on a private complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate took the complaint as C.C.No.82 of 2005 and issued process.2. On appearance, the respondents herein/accused 1 and 2 pleaded ignorance. Necessary charge was framed and after having the charge read over and explained, they again pleaded not guilty. Consequently, a trial was held, in which the appellant herein/complainant deposed a...
Tvl.Aswini Foundations Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
This writ petition is 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 respondent and quash the assessment proceedings in TNGST 1582246/2006-07 dated 07.09.2011 issued therein and direct the respondent to pass fresh self assessment orders as per section 87-A of TNVAT Act.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 7.9.2011, is arbitrary and illegal, as it is contrary to Section 87-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Since, the period in question is from 1.4.2006 to 31.12.2006, a Self Assessment order ought to have been passed by the respondent. Instead, the respondent had made a Best Judgment Assessment, by disallowing the concession and exemption. Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 7.9.2011, is to be set asi...
N.Satishkumar Vs. Meenakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to call for the records of the appellate order, dated 11.05.2011 in C.A.No.9 of 2011 of the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court)m Virudhunagar against the order in Cr.M.P.No.2110 of 2009 dated 22.01.2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and set aside the same.ORDER1. There is no representation for the revision petitioner. This is not a first time this petition has been left without any representation on behalf of the revision petitioner. Hence, this court deems it fit to pass an order after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents and upon perusing the records.2.The revision petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent. 2nd respondent minor Petchi is their daughter. Alleging failure to maintain them and commission of domestic violation, proceedings were initiated on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar in Crl.M.P.No.2110 of 2009...
Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M.Chinnasamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 15.09.2011, made in W.P.No.20439 of 2011.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice Elipe Dharma Rao)1. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 15.09.2011, made in W.P.No.20439 of 2011, whereby the writ petition, which was filed by the appellant seeking a direction to the respondent to treat her candidature for direct recruitment for the posts included in the combined engineering services examination in Advertisement No.247 on the basis of the community certificate submitted as belonging to Backward Class Community by considering her representations, dated 18.08.2011 and 26.08.2011, was dismissed.2.It is the case of the appellant that she belongs to Kerala Mudali Community, which is classified as one of the Backward Castes, listed as Item No.52 in the list furnished by the Government as per G.O.(Ms.) No.85, dated 29.07.2008, G.O.(Ms) No.97, dated 11.09.2008 and G.O.(Ms) ...
A.B.Sathish Kumar Vs. Mr.Ramaiah, I.A.S
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6853 of 2003 on 26.02.2010.O R D E R1. Mr.E.Sampathkumar, Learned Special Government Pleader (Education) informs this Court that the order passed by this Court dated 26.02.2010 in W.P.No.6853 of 2003, has been fully complied with and further necessary proceeding in Rc.No.344/B5/2010, dated 08.03.2012, has been issued by the Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai- 600 006.2.It transpires from the proceeding dated 08.03.2012, issued by the Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai- 600 006 that the Writ Petitioner has been awarded one mark and his total marks have declared as 108 out of 148 and further, since he has secured the eligible cut of marks in the Backward Class (General) communal turn, he is deemed to have been selected as Block Resource Teacher Educator in Physics in the second turn of ...
E.Bamila Vs. the Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 15.09.2011, made in W.P.No.20439 of 2011.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice Elipe Dharma Rao)1. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 15.09.2011, made in W.P.No.20439 of 2011, whereby the writ petition, which was filed by the appellant seeking a direction to the respondent to treat her candidature for direct recruitment for the posts included in the combined engineering services examination in Advertisement No.247 on the basis of the community certificate submitted as belonging to Backward Class Community by considering her representations, dated 18.08.2011 and 26.08.2011, was dismissed.2.It is the case of the appellant that she belongs to Kerala Mudali Community, which is classified as one of the Backward Castes, listed as Item No.52 in the list furnished by the Government as per G.O.(Ms.) No.85, dated 29.07.2008, G.O.(Ms) No.97, dated 11.09.2008 and G.O.(Ms) ...
Wheels India Limited Vs. the Special Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the second Respondent herein to implement the judgement of this Court in W.P.No.27244/2004, dated 7.8.2007 as prayed for by the Petitioners by their application dated 05.12.2011, and grant refund of entry tax of Rs.89,60,389.97 paid by the petitioners during the period between Mar- 02 to Jul-06.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.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 consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.12.2011, on merits, in view of the circular, in MM2/8697/2007, dated 03.10.2007, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, within a specified period.3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for suc...
Sri Chandru Vs. K.Nagarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2007 made in O.S.No.37 of 2006 on the file of Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J.1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit for partition O.S.No.37 of 2006, unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in the Original Suit.2. The plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 are the sons and daughters of defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 have been doing textile business in the name and style of M/s.Sri Ashtalakshmi Tex at Door No.59, Pulikuthi main road, Gugai, Salem. Each of defendants 1 and 2 are the sole proprietors of the said proprietary concerns. Both defendants 1 and 2 have availed financial assistance for their business concerns for which defendants 1 and 2 have mortgaged their properties viz., suit item Nos. 2 to 7 in favour of 5th defendant Ba...
Sri Kayaroganaswamy Vs. Nagapattinam Co-operative.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.1996 made in A.S.No.99 of 1996 on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 04.01.1995 made in O.S.No.107 of 1992 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam.J U D G M E N T1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has projected the instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.1996 in A.S.No.99 of 1996 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 04.01.1995 in O.S.No.107 of 1992 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam.2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.99 of 1996 (filed by the Appellant/Temple), on 20.09.1996, has inter alia observed that 'as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, Ex.A.2 Notice has been issued and as per S...
Ms.Tamil Nadu Finance Vs. K.B.Pandurangan(Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
JUDGMENT1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff in the suit, as against the judgement and decree dated 25.3.1983 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, which was one for recovery of money.2. This is a very old appeal of 20 years old. The original defendant died pending appeal and his L.Rs have been brought on record, but no one has appeared before this Court, despite service of notice having been effected as per law.3. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.4. A recounting and recapitulation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:(i) The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,800/- based on the suit promissory note.(ii) The original defendant resisted the suit by pleading that there was no loan transaction based on pro-note, but he borrowed only a sum of Rs.11,000/- from the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »