Chennai Court April 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.
P.Maniarasan Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 30.01.2002 made in I.D.No.137/2001 from the 1st respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent Corporation to pay the petitioner backwages and other attendant service benefits from the date of suspension till the date of the retirement with interest.O R D E R1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award passed by the first respondent herein dated 30.01.2002 passed in I.D.No.137/2001, confirming the order of termination dated 12.01.1998 passed by the third respondent herein.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed originally in the year 1963 as Maistry for handling food grains at the Madras Harbour, as employed by the Regional Director (Food), Southern Region, Madras. The petitioner has become the employee of the Food Corporation of India...
Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.Anbazhagan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PRAYER :This Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 21.04.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.287 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.JUDGMENT1. Both the CMAs since arose out of same award passed by the Tribunal, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. CMA.No.1766 of 2009 has been filed by the Insurance Company as against the award of the Tribunal. CMA.No.611 of 2009 has been filed by the injured, asking more compensation.3. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the driver of the offending vehicle himself has admitted in the Magistrate's Court. At the time of accident he was not having proper driving licence. In such circumstances the Tribunal ought not to have directed the Company to pay the amount to the injured and recover it from the insured.4. On the other hand, the learned counsel f...
Thirugnanam . Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to pay the sanctioned educational loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner's son Mr.Pugazhenthy towards his educational loan as per the Provisional Sanction letter dated 20.08.2011 of the second respondent.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent, to pay the sanctioned educational loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner's son, Pugazhenthy, towards his educational loan, as per the Provisional Sanction letter, dated 20.08.2011, issued by the second respondent.3. It had been submitted that, Pugazhenthy, had applied to the Indian Maritime University, (Central University, Government of India), to pursue B.Tech, Maritime ...
K.Marudhupandiyan Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PrayerPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the impugned seniority list published by the 2nd respondent in the website on 22.04.2010 for the promotion to the post of High School Headmaster as on 01.01.2010 and in consequential impugned order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.29388/C1/E1/2010 dated 12.04.2010 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of High School Head Masters by including the petitioners names in the seniority list on par with B.T. Assistants and Tamil Pandits.ORDER1. The petitioners are Vocational Instructors employed in the High School. According to them, they are eligible to be considered for the post of Headmaster in the High School, pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.185, School Education Department, dated 25.08.2008. However, their names were not considered and inc...
Ms.Promech Industries Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PRAYERWrit Appeal (MD)No.231 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.02.2012 passed in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 in W.P.(MD)No.2265 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.232 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.02.2012 passed in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 in W.P.(MD)No.2266 of 2012 on the file of this Court. Writ Appeal (MD)No.233 of 2012 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.02.2012 passed in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 in W.P.(MD)No.2267 of 2012 on the file of this Court.R.BANUMATHI,J1. These Writ Appeals are preferred against the order granting conditional stay of recovery that Appellant to deposit 25% of the demand on or before 30.03.2012.2. Appellant has purchased electric and electronic goods from other States and also from registered dealers within the State and purchases of Camera, Sensors, Lens and IC etc. from other countries and claimed input tax credit on the purc...
Yanose Vs. the Director and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PrayerPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st and 3rd respondents to initiate appropriate action against the 5th respondent and may impose maximum punishment to the 5th respondent for violating Rule 22 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant's conducting Rules.ORDER1. The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 3 to initiate appropriate action against the 5th respondent and to impose maximum punishment for violation of Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules.2. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent is employed as Pharmacist in the Kanyakumari Government Medical College Hospital and participated in some agitation, for which, he was imposed only warning as punishment. Hence, the writ petition is filed seeking for appropriate action to impose maximum punishment.3. In my view, it is for the authorities concerned to decide as to what should be the puni...
M.Kumar Vs. Tamilnadu Khadi and Village and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order Rc.No.32749/01/E3(1) dated 05.10.2009 read with order Rc.No.12218/E3(1)/2010 dated 06.12.2010 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner together with interest.ORDER1. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 11.05.2001. It is an order of punishment. He had put in 16 years of service at the time of passing of the order. The petitioner is not granted pension for the services rendered, by the impugned order. The petitioner has sought to question the same.2. Heard both sides.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had rendered more than 10 years service, he is entitled to pension.4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that t...
Vijaya Kumar Vs. Director General of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PRAYERPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent herein in his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.103799/CC-3/ RECRUITMENT.II(2)/2008 dated 09.12.2009, quash the same and to further direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of band man in pursuant to the band men recruitment for the year 2007.ORDER1. The petitioner has applied for the post of Band Man Constable for the year 2007. He was successful in the written test, physical efficiency test and he was also found fit in the medical examination. He was selected for the post. Before giving the appointment order police verification was conducted. However, on the police verification it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in S.C.No.62 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai and he was acquitted by the said Court on 18.10.2002, giving benefit of doubt. Ba...
M.Ponnaiyan Joseph Vs. the Director of Town Panchayats and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment as Office Assistant or any other post equivalent to the post of Office Assistant in the office of the fourth respondent by considering the petitioner's long service as Street Light Operator and also to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.1.2011 under physically handicapped quota.ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as a Street Light Operator in the Office of the fourth respondent/Town Panchayat. According to him, he was dismissed from service in the year 2000 without any sufficient reason. There is no details about the date and month of his dismissal. Further, he has not chosen to question the dismissal order. While so, he filed W.P.No.3494 of 2010 seeking for direction to consider his representation, dated 10.02.2010 for appointment to the post of Waterman. This Court disposed the said ...
Elgi Electric and Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'D' dated 28th February 2005 in I.T.A.No. 499/Mds/1998. (Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1994-95, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs.17,16,619/- being the refundable contingency deposit collected by the appellant is liable to be included as a 'trading receipt' constituting income and not allowable as a deduction in computing the income?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs.24,500/- being the filing fees paid for increasing the capital structure of the company?3. Whether on the facts an...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »