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.
Murugan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
COMMON JUDGMENTP.DEVADASS,J.1. Since A.1 Murugan, son of Raman @ Sevittu Raman (Appellant in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.388 of 2008) and A.2 Murugan, son of Senthur Pandi (Appellant in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.394 of 2008) were tried together in S.C.No.61 of 2006, before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and were convicted and sentenced on 8.8.2008, common arguments were heard and thus, this common judgment is being rendered.2. In the said Court, both were found guilty under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and each were sentenced to life and fined Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.3. In the trial Court, A.1, A.2 and A.3 (Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh) were proceeded with for the death of one Muthulakshmi. Since A.3 had absconded, the case against him was separated in S.C.No.110 of 2007. On securing him, subsequently, he was tried separately and was convicted and sentenced. However, he has not appealed.4. Now, in these appeals, we are concerned with A.1 and A.2 al...
P.V.Sellamuthu Vs. Rajasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
S.A.No.1343 of 2001: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2001 made in A.S.No.6 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Judge, Bhavani, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 02.12.1999 in O.S.No.595 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court (Principal District Munsif, Incharge), Bhavani.S.A.No.1344 of 2001: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2001 made in A.S.No.5 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Judge, Bhavani, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 02.12.1999 in O.S.No.615 of 1996 on the file of the Learned Additional District Munsif Court (Learned Principal District Munsif, Incharge), Bhavani.C O M M O N J U D G M E N TS.A.No.1343 of 2001:The Appellants/Plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2001 in A.S.No.6 of 2000 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Bhavani, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 02.12.1999 in O...
K.Kumaran Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents herein from in any manner recruiting/filling up 186 posts of Assistant Section Officer in Secretariat (other than Law and Finance Department) in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service under Post Code No.1072, for which advertisement/notification has not been issued and 26 posts of Assistant Section Officer in the Office of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service under Post Code No. 2201 in excess of the notified number of vacancies, from among the candidates who have applied for and taken written examination pursuant to the Notification/Advertisement of the second respondent herein bearing No.219 dated 15.11.2009. W.P.No.7948/2011:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from filling up 186 posts of Assistant Section Officer...
Central Bank of India Vs. the Asst. Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to conclude the conciliation, submit failure report within in respect of proceedings No.M.7/28/2010-B3 dated 07.07.2010 in respect of dispute raised by 2nd respondent regarding the order of suspension pending enquiry issued to C.Sekar within a time frame to the Central Government.O R D E R1. The Writ Petition is filed by a Nationalized Bank, namely Central Bank of India. In this Writ Petition, they are seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chennai to conclude the conciliation proceedings initiated by him in No.M.7/28/2010-B3 dated 07.07.2010, which is pending on his file. By the aforesaid communication, the Conciliation Officer issued notice to the petitioner bank stating that he will be holding joint discussions/conciliation proceedings, if need be under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the subject un...
Ms.Ambal Auto a Unit of Sree Saradhambal Automobiles (P) Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner dated 12.2.2012 with regard to excess tax paid amounting to Rs.7,84,801/- refundable by the respondent to the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1998-99 under the TNGST Act 1959.ORDER1. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 12.2.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, has 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 respondent is directed to dispos...
Ms.Tirupati Chemicals Vs. the Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to release the goods viz., 42.260 KG of Slack Wax, imported vide Bill of Entry No.5526310, dated 21.12.2011 on the value declared by the petitioner at USD 16.904.00 totally.ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus directing the respondents to release the goods namely 42.260 kilograms of Slack Wax, imported vide Bill of Entry No.5526310, dated 21.12.2011 on the value declared by the petitioner at USD 16,904.00 totally.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's firm imported 42.260 kilograms of Slack Wax from M/s.Baykim Chemicals, Turkey vide invoice No.70221, dated 19.08.2011. They filed Bill of Entry No.5526310, dated 21.12.2011 for clearance of the same for Home Consumption and declared the value of the imported goods at USD 0.400 per kilogram. Thereafter, the above Bill of Entry was forwarded to the third r...
Nirmala Vs. N.Krishnaswamy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to provide the petitioner duty and to pay the petitioner subsistence allowance from 12.01.2005 to 11.03.2005 and salary from 12.03.2005 till duty is provided.O R D E R1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to provide her duty and to pay the subsistence allowance from 12.01.2005 to 11.03.2005 and salary from 12.03.2005 till she was restored to service.2. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 31.10.2007. On notice from this Court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 10.11.2007 together with typed set of documents. On behalf of the Chief Educational Officer, viz., the second respondent, proceedings dated 18.06.2008 was also produced. The writ petition was subsequently admitted on 03.11.2010. Pending the writ petition, the application for interim direction came to be dismisse...
M.Anbazhagan Vs. the Chairman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to appropriately modify and amend the clause 5(b) of the Prospectus issued for Direct Recruitment of Senior Lecturers in District Institutes of Education and Training under the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training 2011 so as to incorporate the clause for relaxation of 5% marks in M.Ed., Degree in respect of candidates belong to SC/ST category and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Senior Lecturer in History based on his application dated 20.1.2012.ORDER1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the first respondent viz., Teacher Recruitment Board to appropriately modify or amend Para 5(b) of the prospectus issued, calling for applications for direct recruitment to the post of Senior Lecturers in District Institutes of Educati...
Ms P.M.P.Textiles Spinning Vs. the Assistant Commssioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to permit the petitioner to pay the entire arrears of Tax amounting to Rs.25,12,935/- relating to the assessment year 2007-2008 under the CST Act, 1956, in 15 equated monthly installments.O R D E R1. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent had submitted that the entire arrears of tax, amounting to Rs.25,12,935/-, may be directed to be paid by the petitioner, in ten equated monthly installments, beginning from 15.3.2012.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had consented to pay the entire arrears of tax amount, as stated by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.5. In view of the above...
M/S. Amber Agro Polymer and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. the Bombay Bur ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2012
(Prayer: The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to return back the advance amount of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at 12% p.a for the deficiency of service and gross negligence, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for compensation for the loss of hardships and to pay costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dated 21.12.20109 in C.C.No.105/2006. The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 20.2.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction for refund of Rs.1,80,000/- with 12% interes...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »