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.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Vs. K.Sivaraman.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
JUDGMENT1. The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal, dated 30.06.2010 made in C.C.No.31 of 2007 on the file of the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Chennai, whereby A1 was acquitted of the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and A2 was acquitted of the offences under Sections 109 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act.2.The appellant has filed a final report stating that the first respondent was working as Inspector of Police in Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Chennai, and then he was promoted as Superintendent of Police. During the check period between 1.1.1995 and 31.12.2001, he was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Central Intelligence Unit, Kancheepuram and Assistant Commissioner, Security, in Government Royapettah Hospital and Deputy Superintendent of Police (law and order) in Adyar and Assistant Commissioner in Madhavaram and then, working as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Law and order), Anti...
Rukmani Ammal Vs. Karuppa Gounder.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
J U D G M E N T1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has projected this instant Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.05.2001 in A.S.No.121 of 2000 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 27.06.2000 in O.S.No.216 of 1996 passed by the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.2.The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.121 of 2000 (filed by the Respondents/Defendants as Appellants) on 31.05.2001, has inter alia held that 'The Respondent/Plaintiff has failed to establish her case and claim to the hilt and as such, not been in agreement with the findings of the trial Court in holding that the oral sale is a true one and that the Respondent/Plaintiff has proved her prescribed title and enjoyment by Adverse Possession and consequently, allowed the Appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, thereby, setting as...
State of Tamilnadu Vs. A.Musthafa Iqbal Basha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
JUDGMENT[Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J]1. The State has preferred this appeal as against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 15.03.2011, passed in W.P.(MD)No.119 of 2010, wherein the respondent herein sought for a writ of certiorified mandamus to quash the proceedings, dated 06.11.2009, of the District Educational Officer, Lalgudi, Trichy District, the 4th appellant herein, rejecting the request of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground, in any of the Government Schools.2.A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that the contention of the respondent was accepted on the ground that on the date of death of the respondent's father, i.e. on 15.10.1993, he was working as B.T.Assistant in the Education Department and on the said date, the respondent was just 13 years old, studying in VIII-standard. After attaining majority, the respondent is stated to have submitted an application on 30.12.1999 and sought for app...
The Principal Vs. P.Thangam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
O R D E R1. This is a very unfortunate case and for wrong reasons, the parties are before this Court. The petitioner is Kendriya Vidyalaya School, Kattobomman, Vijayanarayanam, Nanguneri Taluk, represented by its Principal. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the award made in I.D.No.5 of 2011 dated 06.06.2011.2. By the impugned award, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, after examining the first respondent and marking exhibits WW1 to WW6 and having already set the petitioner ex parte, found that the reference was to be answered in favour of the first respondent. Therefore, it observed that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman was not legal and justified and she was entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service vide award dated 06.06.2011. Challenging the said award, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.3. When the matter came up on 20.03.2012, this Court directed the petitione...
Ranga Associates Vs. the Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from interfering with the right of the petitioner and its customers to transport sand, from Puducherry to Kerala, with valid documents.2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the respondents are not interfering with the transportation of sand, arbitrarily and illegally, as alleged by the petitioner. The action taken by the respondents, if any, is only with the intention of curbing illegal transportation of sand, contrary to the relevant provisions of law. As such, the petitioner, as well as its customers, who are said to be purchasers of sand, should satisfy the legal requirements for such transportation, as prescribed by law. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to state that the authorities concerned, including the respondents herein, should refrain from stopping and checking the vehicles transporting ...
Elumalai Vs. State Rep.by the Inspector of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
JUDGMENTK.MOHAN RAM,J1. The appellant, who faced trial in S.C.No.263 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahalir Court), Cuddalore for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo two months rigourous imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence imposed, the appellant is before this Court.2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is the son of the aunt of the deceased - Kasapayee. About two months prior to 12.7.2009, when the deceased took mud for swobbing from the dilapidated house of the accused, which is situated on the east of the house of the deceased, she was assaulted by him and due to that, there was enmity between them. On the evening of 11.7.2009, the appellant, in a drunken mood, stated that he would pull her intestines out and make it a garland around his neck. Due to enmity, at about 1 AM on 1...
Ut Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
Per Mathew John, J. 1. The appellants are providing services in the categories of Custom House Agents Service, Business Auxiliary Service and Goods Transport Agency Service. The appellants are recognized by International Air Transport Association and render various services to exporters and importers like customs-clearance, packing, loading and unloading, booking cargo space in airlines, freight forwarding etc. As consideration for their service, appellants received payments under the heads of commission, handling charges, profit share, transshipment revenue, airway bill charges, charges collect fee, etc.2. During audit of the accounts of the appellants, Revenue noticed that the Appellants had not paid service tax on amounts collected under the head charges collect fee, ‘profit share’, ‘transshipment charges’ etc. There were also some other amounts collected by them from their customers like EDI charges, stuffing charges etc. as reimbursable ex...
General Secretary P. Thanapal Vs. Government of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2012
J U D G M E N T(The Honourable the Chief Justice & T.S. Sivagnanam)1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.9092 of 2009 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-Association.2. The appellant, an Association of Sri Lankan Repatriates at Chennai, started for the welfare of the Sri Lankan repatriates, filed the writ petition seeking to set aside the order passed by the third respondent-District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 4.3.2009 and for a consequential direction to regularise their possession in respect of certain house sites by grant of patta in the names of the respective members. By the order dated 4.3.2009, the request of the appellant-Association for grant of patta to its members in Survey No.131/10A1 of Palavakkam Village in Kancheepuram District was rejected on the ground that the said land is a patta land belonging to Burmese Repatriates and that alternative accommodation was intended to be pr...
V.Selvakumar Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2012
ORDER1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Heard Mr.P.Rathinam learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Saravanan for Mr.M.Muniasamy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation.2. The petitioner is before this Court questioning an order passed by the third respondent in N30/03/2012a.Ka.A5/78/2011, dated 03.12.2011 in and by which, the petitioner has been relieved from the post of Supervisor. Seeking to quash the same and for consequential direction to reinstate him with all service benefits, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Shop Supervisor on 29.11.2003 by the third respondent after following the due process i.e. by sponsoring his name by the employment exchange concerned and after conducting interview. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as security deposit and since then, he was working as Shop Supervisor in Paramakudi Five Corner Road TASMAC bearing...
G.Sivaprakasam Vs. G.Dhandapani.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2012
PrayerSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur dated 29.08.2006 in A.S.No.28 of 2006 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam dated 27.12.2005 in O.S.No.201 of 1998.JUDGMENT1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.201 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Sub - Court, Kumbakonam is the appellant.2. The suit was instituted on Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, whereunder on 15.06.1998 defendant /respondent is stated to have received Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff promising to repay it with 24% interest p.a. It was attested to by one Sivasankaran and Anbalagan. Since the amount was not paid, on 09.10.1998 plaintiff issued Ex.A.2 (= Ex.B.1) notice to the defendant. It was acknowledged by him under Ex.A.3. However, neither he paid the amount nor replied him. Hence, the suit was filed.3. The claim was resisted by the defendant filing a written statement, w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »