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.
iyyakannu Vs. Subramanian.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
J U D G M E N T1. The Appellants/Defendants have focused this instant Second Appeal adverting upon the Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.1998 in A.S.No.290 of 1996 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kallakurichi in affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.1995 in O.S.No.318 of 1990 passed by the Learned Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi.2.The First Appellate Court, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.290 of 1996 (A.S.No.231 of 1995 on the file of the Villupuram District) on 21.04.1998, has, inter alia opined that 'the Respondent/Plaintiff has improved the suit property and has been in enjoyment of the same and also based on Ex.A.1 Assignment Order, the suit property has remained as a separate property of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Further, it has also observed that the suit property has been in enjoyment of the Respondent/Plaintiff based on Ex.A.1 Assignment Order dated 10.04.1980 and the enjoyment has also been established as per Exs.A.2 to A.8. Moreover, i...
G.Sekar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned charge memo in Na.Ka.No. 81627/W2/E3/09, dated 16.12.2010 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal.ORDER1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the impugned charge memo, dated 16.12.2010, on the file of the third respondent.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Post Graduate Teacher (Mathematics) in the fifth respondent school. On 14.09.2009, the third respondent has issued a charge memo alleging that the petitioner was negligent with regard to the verification of marks entered at the Mark Sheet from the answer script. Disciplinary proceeding was also initiated under Section 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner has submitted an explanation and thereafter, by an order, dated 18.11.2009, the third respondent imposed the puni...
K. Ponnamal Vs. V. Thayanban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
O R D E R1. Petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to strike off the plaint in the suit filed by the first respondent herein, viz. O.S. No.8134 of 2011 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court Judge, Chennai.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :-The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, filed a suit in O.S. No.8134 of 2011 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court Judge, Chennai for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from dealing with the suit property to an extent of 7.46 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.24/2, 25/2B, 26, 56, 58, 59, 60 and 61(Part) at Nerkundram Village in any manner, including bringing the property for sale without paying the consideration to the plaintiff as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.8.2008 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants.3. The relevant facts pleaded by the plaintiff/1st respondent in the pla...
State Rep. by Vs. V.Panneer Selvam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
JUDGMENT1. This appeal challenges the order of acquittal dated 11.12.2008 in Special Case No.5/2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Nagercoil.2.Following is the brief account of the prosecution case :- [a] P.W.2 is a Contractor. He had already received a solvency certificate for Rs.5,00,000/- from Agastheeswaram Taluk Office on 27.01.2001 and he had completed the work of constructing a library building. In order to register the solvency certificate with the Public Works Department, Nagercoil, he paid a sum of Rs.540/- through chalan and also gave application form on 23.12.2002. The authorities of Public Works Department, after receipt of the application along with solvency certificate, forwarded the solvency certificate to Agastheeswaram Tahsildar, the ascertain the genuineness of the certificate and the communication was handed over to P.W.2. On 23.12.2002 at about 5.00 p.m., he went to Agastheeswaram Taluk office and gave the letter to the first accuse...
N.Karpagavalli Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
PrayerWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2012 and regularize her service with effect from 01.08.2005 with all attendant benefits with continuity of service and all other benefits.ORDER1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Heard Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.2. The petitioner has sought for a direction to consider her representation dated 07.03.2012 and regularize her service with effect from 01.08.2005 with all attendant benefits and continuity of service. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Scavenger at Primary Health Centre at Kottaiyur Village by the third respondent vide order Na.Ka.No.2785/C-7/05, dated 29.07.2005 and she has been working in the respondents departm...
Arjunan Vs. D. Pandi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
JUDGMENT1. The defendant in O.S.No.863 of 2002, in the II Additional Sub-Court, Madurai is the appellant.2. Admittedly, the suit property measuring about 97 cents situate in South Thenpazhanji Village in Madurai District belongs to the appellant. On 8.3.1999, under Ex.A.2 sale agreement, he had agreed to sell the suit property to the respondent/ plaintiff for Rs.2,50,000/-. In Ex.A.2, it is mentioned that on that date, respondent had paid him Rs.1 lakh as advance and one year time has been fixed for execution of the sale deed.3. According to the respondent, on the date of Ex.A.2, the original title deed of the property (Ex.A.1) was also given to him by the defendant. Subsequently, on six occasions, totally respondent had paid him Rs.1,45,000/-. Appellant also issued him Ex.A.3 receipt dated 21.4.2001. So far Rs.2,45,000/- has been paid. Balance is only Rs.5,000/-. Respondent has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Time is not made the essence of the contr...
The Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office and Others Vs. S. Sid ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2012
(This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 08.03.2012, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsel and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:) A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming direction for the return of Rs.53,150/- towards Extra Health Premium with refund of penal interest of Rs.6,122/-, Rs.1 lakh towards deficiency in service and for costs. 3. The complainant obtained a life insurance policy on 20.02.1999 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs with the maturity on 27.2.2024 for 25 years, for which, a sum of Rs.30,049/- was paid as Annual Premium and subsequently due to his economic condition, he has not paid the premium for 2006 and 2007. On 15.02.2008, he paid Rs.60,098/- + Rs.6,122/- as premium for two years and penal charges, in all Rs.66,220/- paid to the second opposite party and thereafter get...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Ravishankar Industries ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The respondents in this case were engaged in the manufacture of Cinematographic Positive films, Photographic Films and Photographic Paper. They manufactured the goods and sold it at a price to M/s.Asian Photographic Films Pvt. Ltd., Madras. (APFP, for short). M/s.APFP were incurring expenses for advertising the products of the respondents to encourage sale of goods. The case of the Revenue is that the advertisement expenses incurred by APFP should have been included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the respondents because they are doing such advertisement on behalf of the respondents. 2. Revenue relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC). Based on this argument, a SCN was issued and adjudicated. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for duty. Against that order, the respondents filed an appeal with the Com...
The Director General of Police Vs. Mahalakshmi Cultural Association.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN, J.)1. Saint Thiruvalluvar in 934th couplet of Thirukkural described the evils of gambling as follows: There is nothing else that brings (us) poverty like gambling which causes many a misery and destroys (one's) reputation.2. The writ appeal is directed against the order disposing the writ petition, whereby the learned Judge issued certain directions. The question involved in the appeal is as to whether the activity of the respondent-Mahalakshmi Cultural Association in allowing its members and guests to play rummy (13 cards) with stakes is legal and permissible in the eye of law?3. The writ appeal arises under the following circumstances. The respondent-Mahalakshmi Cultural Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association ) approached this Court by filing the writ petition seeking for an order forbearing the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Police ) from interfering in any manner in the activities of the asso...
Mrs.Kanagambal Vs. Kanniappan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
JUDGMENT1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.216 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Vedasanthur is the appellant.2. The suit was instituted on the basis of Ex.A.1 promissory note dated 22.01.1997 stated to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for their receipt of Rs.25,000/- agreeing to repay it with 12% interest p.a. However, they did not pay as agreed. So, the plaintiff issued them Ex.A.2 Lawyer's notice dated 27.4.1998. But, it was returned by them (Ex.A.3 returned postal acknowledgment). But, on 15.5.1998, they have issued Ex.A.4 reply denying plaintiff's claim. In the circumstances, the plaintiff sued them.3. The defendants have resisted the suit by filing written statement. They have stated that first defendant is related to the plaintiff. He stayed in her family, friendship developed between them. In 1995, on her request, first defendant had pledged her jewels in his name with Primary Agricultural Co- operative Bank, Vedasanthur for Rs.9,000/- and gave ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »