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.First Track Traders Vs. the Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
This Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to provisionally assess and clear the consignment comprising of 104 units of old and used secondhand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines and 10 units of old and used secondhand photocopying machines covered by Bill of Entry No.3394138 dated 03.05.2011 without insisting for a licence for its import in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy read with Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Rules, upon the petitioner paying the applicable duties of customs of the enhanced value as determined by the chartered engineer.ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents herein to provisionally assess and clear the consignment comprising of 104 units of old and used secondhand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines and 10 units of old and used secondhand photocopying machines (henceforth called as 'imported goods') ...
L.Jayaprakasan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in AE1/70964/2012, dated 27.1.2011, of the respondent, quash the same in so far as it has reserved right to initiate disciplinary proceedings on major charges after retirement pending DVAC case No.3 of 2009 and also pending W.P.No.21926 of 2009 and consequently, direct the respondent to release the retirement benefits to the petitioner as if he retired from service on 31.1.2011 without any blemish.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the respondent, dated 27.1.2011, according to which the petitioner had been permitted to retire from service, on his attaining the age of superannuation, without prejudice to the pending Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corrupti...
C.Venkatesh Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
PRAYERThe Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli in S.C.No.314 of 2002, on 31.01.2003, sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment with fine Rs.1,000/- in default one year R.I for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, 3 years R.I with the fine Rs.1,000/- in default 6 months R.I offence under Section 201 IPC and 3 years R.I for offence under Section 379 IPC.JUDGMENT1. A.1 Venkatesan and A.2 Kumar @ Sivakumar were prosecuted in S.C.No.314 of 2002, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli, for conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, for raping one Lakshmi under Section 376 IPC, for killing her under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC, for stealing her properties under Section 379 IPC, for criminally intimidated her under Section 506 (i) IPC and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC....
V.Sekar Vs. State by Inspector of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling for the records in C.C.No.343 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.343 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee involving offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468 r/w 471, 120 (b) & 109 I.P.C. This is a case on a police report. The second respondent is the de facto complainant in the case.2. The petitioners have now come up with this original petition seeking to quash the said case on the sole ground that the dispute between the second respondent and the petitioners has been settled by means of a compromise. The second respondent has filed an affidavit wherein, he has stated that the dispute between them has been amicably settled and he has got no objection for quashing the proceedings. Admittedly, since some of the offences involved in this c...
M.Velmurugan Vs. the Motor Vehicles Inspector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to release the petitioner's vehicle TN-02/AR/0587 (which was seized by the first respondent and now in the custody of the second respondent) forthwith.O R D E R1. Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, the learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.2. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 16.2.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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 second respondent is directed to dispose of ...
ismath Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in Lr.No.AE/O & M/CPK/F.Cont./D-3 dated 23.11.2002 issued by the third respondent to the petitioner in respect of the building bearing the Old Door No.10, Old Door No.9, Typoon Alikhan Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5 and quash the same.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in Lr.No.AE/O & M/CPK/F.Cont./D-3 dated 23.11.2002 issued by the third respondent to the petitioner in respect of the building bearing the New Door No.10, Old Door No.9, Typoon Alikhan Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5 and quash the same.2. Petitioner Mr.Ismath, son of Pacir Mohammed, claimed to be the owner of the site and building situate at No.16, Abdul Kareem Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5 purchased by a registered sale deed dated 31.5.2000. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings served on him showing...
C.Muruganandham Vs. D.Chitra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
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 second respondent to take appropriate legal action against the fourth respondent based on the petitioner representation dated 05.07.2011 in accordance with law.O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the second respondent, to take appropriate legal action against the fourth respondent based on the petitioner representation dated 05.07.2011 in accordance with law.2 The petitioner is the permanent resident of Pullivalam Village and is devotee of Arulmigu Thiyagaraja swamy Temple, Tiruvarur. The 4th respondent is the President of Pullivalam Panchayat whereas the 5th respondent is her husband.3 The submission of the petitioner is that the respondents 4 and 5 by taking advantage of the post of President of Pullivalam Panchayat, have colluded with one Latha and others and encroached upon th...
The Pondicherry Co-operative Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.12023/LA/D1/77-01 dated 25.9.2002 and quash the same.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.12023/LA/D1/77-01 dated 25.9.2002 and quash the same.2. At the behest of the petitioner, the lands were acquired by the Government of Pondicherry and the petitioner deposited certain amount. The land owners made an application for enhancement of compensation which was finally concluded by the High Court. Based on the order of the High Court, the enhanced compensation amount was recalculated and communicated by the impugned proceedings No.12023/LA/D1/77-01 dated 25.9.2002 to the writ petitioner. In this communication the petitioner is a...
K.R.Ramaswamy Alias Traffic Vs. the Chief Secretary to Government of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing the second respondent Minister to show under what authority he functions as a Minister in the face of the well documented allegations of law breaking.O R D E R(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.)1. In this writ petition, the petitioner who appears in person, has sought for issuance of a writ of quo warranto for the removal of the second respondent, the Forest Minister, on the ground that there is a violation of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act prohibiting erection of digital banners.2. It is alleged that while he was travelling in Kamarajar Salai from Light House to Parry's Corner, he found so many digital banners fixed in the lamp posts. There is no whisper in the writ petition that those banners have been fixed by the second respondent, the Forest Minister. We, therefore, first called upon the...
Raju at Arokia Jesuraj Vs. Mrs.V.Victoria
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.614 of 2005 is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act,1984, against the judgment and decree of the Family Court at Coimbatore, passed in I.D.O.P.No.4 of 2002, dated 7.9.2004.S.Vimala, J.1. The petition for divorce filed by the husband under Section 10(1) (x) of Indian Divorce Act, was dismissed by the Family Court, Coimbatore, in I.D.O.P.No.4 of 2002. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the petition, present appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband.2. The case of Appellant/Petitioner are as follows:-The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 12.6.2000, according to Christian Customs. After the marriage, they lived as husband and wife at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore, i.e., at the residence of the appellant. The respondent wanted postponement of birth of the child on the ground that she wanted to give her salary to her parents. The husband also agreed for the request. Later, the respondent wanted to live with her parents wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »