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.
M.Vasanthi Vs. Pechiannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
JUDGMENT1. This appeal is focussed by the defendants in the suit, as against the judgement and decree dated 9.1.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore, which was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for specific performance based on the agreement to sell dated 4.10.2006, which emerged between the plaintiff and one Murugan the husband of D1 and father of D2 and D3-the minor children, whereby, the latter agreed to sell in favour of former the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,90,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as advance by the plaintiff to the said Murugan. The p...
J. Kumar Vs. the Commissioner and Director.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records culminating to 2nd respondent's order in Na.Ka.No.A5/4892/97 dated 18.4.1997 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to follow the seniority as per his earlier order dated 18.07.1996.O R D E R1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Computer Draftsman on 15.10.1979 in the District Survey Office at Ooty, Coimbatore. The petitioner successfully completed his probation on 13.11.1981. The petitioner was thereafter transferred from Ooty to Coimbatore on 25th May, 1988. This transfer was on the request of petitioner, as per the rules, petitioner was placed at the bottom of seniority list of the post held by him at Ooty.2. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Taluk Draftsman and was placed at Serial No.2. The seniority list of petitioner was changed to 45(a) without issuing any notice to him.3. The petitioner, being agg...
A. Jabrarullah Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
D.N. Panda 1. Noticing role of this appellant in the attempt to export of foreign currencies of various denominations, Travellers cheques and Indian currency of aggregate value of Rs.3,53,79,061/- to Singapore by one Sri Nallaian Pargunam @ Joseph and his wife, the appellant was penalised as an abettor under Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in terms of adjudication order dated 02.05.2003. The Appellant came before Tribunal being aggrieved by that order imposing penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on him under Section 114 of the Act. While imposing penalty, learned Adjudicating authority found involvement of this appellant in the above attempt from statement recorded from one Sri J. Sickander on 11.3.1996 as extracted in para-7 of the impugned order and in so far as that is relevant is extracted below : “Shri J.Sickander, in his statement dated 11.03.96 stated inter alia that he was the owner of Samrat Rest house at Triplicane, that in January, 1996, he met Shri Jafarullah...
K.N.Ramajeyam Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
PrayerCriminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C.,praying this Court to call for the records and to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy, dated 13.02.2012 in C.M.P.No.750 of 2012.ORDER1. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) has taken notice on behalf of the respondent.2. The submissions made by Mr.T.SenthilKumar, learned counsel representing Mr.T.A.Omprakash,the counsel on record for the petitioner and that of the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) referred to above are heard. The grounds of revision and the documents produced in the form of typed- set of papers including the copy of the impugned order are also taken into consideration.3. The petitioner figures as an accused in Cr.No.24 of 2011, on the file of the Special Cell for Anti-Land Grabbing Cases, City Crime Branch, Trichy District. The said case was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 365, 342, 325, 387, 506(ii), 3...
Apoorva Dadha Vs. Mr.S.Mohanchand Dadha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Prayer:These petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the award dated 10.10.2005 passed by the respondents 1 to 3. For petitioner : Mr.Abudukumar,COMMON ORDER1. These Original Petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the award dated 10.10.2005 passed by the respondents 1 to 3.2. According to the petitioner in O.P.No.862 of 2007, he left abroad for pursuing higher studies and he was not in India during the arbitration proceedings and he was not even aware of the arbitration proceedings since no notice was served on him and all arbitrators are his relatives. On receipt of the summons from the Court in O.P.No.80 of 2006, the petitioner came to know about the passing of award and thereafter, only, the petitioner had taken steps by filing the present petition, praying to set aside the award.3. Likewise, the petitioner in O.P.No.80 of 2006 also came forw...
P.Thulasiraman Vs. the Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
These petitions came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.6779 and 6780 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioners as Wireman in Palani Municipality.COMMON ORDER1. This order shall dispose of W.P.No.3663 and 3664 of 2006, as the common question of fact and law are involved in these two writ petitions.2. For the sake of brevity, the facts have been taken from W.P.No.3663 of 2006.3. The petitioner was appointed as Helper in the year 1989 and his services were regularised on 09.08.1990. The probation of the petitioner was declared as successfully completed on 14.01.1992.4. The case of the petitioners is that next channel of promotion is to the post of Wireman. The petitioners being fully eligible, made representation to promote them as Wireman. But no action has been taken on their representation.5 These writ petitions were filed in the year 2001. Therefore, the matt...
Aiyakannu Vs. Joint Commissioner of Customs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the third respondent made in 373/60/B/2001-RA and by order No.11 of 2002 dated 28.01.2002, confirming the orders of the first respondent dated 3.1.2001 and the second respondent dated 3.4.2001, quash the same and direct the respondents to release the 10 Nos. of gold bars weighing 1165 gms valued at Rs.4,78,081.00 to the petitioner being the subject matter of O.S.No.254 of 2000-INT 03.01.2001 on the file of the first respondent.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the third respondent made in 373/60/B/2001-RA and by order No.11 of 2002 dated 28.01.2002, confirming the orders of the first respondent dated 3.1.2001 and the second respondent dated 3.4.2001, quash the same and direct the respondents to release the 10 Nos. of gold bars weighing ...
Ms.United India Insurance Vs. Asmabi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order dated 09.08.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Subordinate Judge], Sankari.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J1. Challenge in this appeal is the Order in M.C.O.P.No.146 of 2006 [09.08.2008] on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Sankari awarding compensation of Rs.29,00,000/- for the death of deceased Seriyam in the road traffic accident on 27.01.2006.2. Brief facts are that on 27.01.2006 at about 8.30 P.M., deceased Seriyam was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-30 T 0464 from Erode to Tiruchengode. When he was nearing Thokkavadi Muniappan Kovil in Tiruchengode - Erode Main Road, the driver of the bus bearing registration No. TN-28 E 1050 belonging to the 6th Respondent and insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased motorcycle causing fatal injuries ...
V.Balu Vs. the Principal Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Proc.Pdl.No.37/2000/A2, dated 15.02.2001 and direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the approved list of Tahsildars for the year 2000 for Salem District Revenue Unit in the appropriate place therein and to promote him as Tahsildar with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits.ORDER1. The petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1995 and at the time of filing the Original Application before learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, was working in the District Collectorate, Salem.2. The next channel of promotion in the cadre of petitioner is to the post of Tahsildar.3. The petitioner was eligible for being promoted to the post of Tahsildar on the basis of seniority, but his name was not included in the panel...
Srinivasan Vs. Kannappan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2012
PRAYER: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.8.2011 by holding detailed enquiry with regard to torture and harassment of the petitioner and his family members by the respondents viz., respondents 4 & 5 and to secure protection to the petitioner and family members.ORDER1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3, to consider the representation filed by the petitioner, dated 29.8.2011 for holding departmental enquiry regarding torture and harassment of the petitioner, and his family members by the respondents 4 & 5 and to provide protection to the petitioner and his family members.2 It is the submission of the petitioner, that he is residing at Hanusonai, Dommathathanur post, Devakarikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The petitioner is living w...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »