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. Thiyagarajan. Vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Prayer: Criminal Appeal No.1067/1998 is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C and Crl.A.Nos.1069 and 1070 of 1998 are filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge-Cum-I Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, on 27.11.1998, made in Special C.C.No.1 of 1990.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T 1. The appeals have been arising out of the conviction and sentence, dated 27.11.1998, made in Special C.C.No.1 of 1990, on the file of the learned Special Judge-Cum-I Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.2. The learned Special Judge has acquitted A1 to A3 and convicted A4 to A8. A8/R.Marudhachalam preferred an appeal in C.A.No.1074 of 1998, but he was died during the pendency of the appeal and hence, the charge against him was abated. One of the appellants in Crl.A.No.1067/1998/A5- P. Thyagarajan was also died. Hence, his charge has been abated. Now the...
C.B.Subramaniya Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent made in Se Mu Na Ka No.47497/07/A1 dated 05.06.2010 and quash the same as illegal, void, arbitrary and ultravires.PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to implement the order of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Madras made in Na.Ka.No.6365/2008/A1 dated 30.10.2008 by break opening the 4 rooms kept under lock in Arulmighu Kadumabadi Chinnamman Thirukovil, Saidapet West, Chennai 600 015 and handover the articles jointly to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein.PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in proceedings bearing RC No...
Dhanalakshmi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records of the 2nd respondent under proceedings bearing reference No.K1/18936/2010, dated 9.8.2010 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for re-classifying the entries in the revenue records pertaining to the unutilized portion of the lands of a total extent of six acres and 36 cents comprised in Old Survey No.34, New Survey No.96/1, T.S.Nos. 2, Block No.9 Adyar Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai from the classification as 'Government Poramboke" and enter the name of the petitioners as the owner in possession in terms of Section 12(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 on merits and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of the said lands.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarifi...
Elumalaiyan Saw Mill. Vs. the Additional Principal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent in E.Mi.PO/E.Pa/Peralam/Kattu.Thani.A.No.11/2012-13 dated 16.4.2012 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents in any way insisting for licence from the respondent Forest Department for providing Electricity connection in M.E.No.569-004-576 and other amenities for running the petitioner's sawmill until the disposal of the petitioner's application dated 15.9.2011 for grant of Licence is made under the provisions of Tamilnadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent in E.Mi.PO/E.Pa/Peralam/Kattu.Thani.A.No.11/2012-13 dated 16.4.2012 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents in any way insisting for licence from the respondent Forest Department f...
Ms.Aktiengesellaschaft, Kunhle Kopp Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai C Bench, dated 16.8.2004 passed in I.T.A.No. 705/1996. (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of Tribunal for the assessment year 1983-84. The above appeal was admitted on the following questions of law.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding amended collaboration agreement was an extension of the old agreement which was entered into before 1.4.76 and hence the tax was payable at the rate of 50%?2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not giving specific direction to the Assessing Officer, to grant consequential benefits if the agreement dated 21.8.81 is treated as an agreement entered into before 1.4.76?2. The assessee herein is a non resident assessee represented through its agency BHEL. The said non resident company had an agreement ...
MunniammA. Vs. the State Commissioner for Differently Abled
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Writ Petition No.11865 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 4.4.2012 in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.28789 of 2010 dated 21.12.2010 and till final decision is taken, not to disturb the running of the petitioner's shop near Ambattur Ambit Park, 2nd Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058.Writ Petition No.11866 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 4.4.2012 in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.28789 of 2010 dated 21.12.2010 and till final decision is taken, not to disturb the running of the petitioner's shop situated opposite to Sindhu Plaza, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.Writ Petition No.11867 of 2012 is filed under Artic...
K.Rajaram and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to process the application dated 12.08.2009 of the petitioners and issue patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring 4965 Sq. Ft. in Plot No. 3 & 4, Achuthan Nagar, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-97 comprised in S.No.77 and T.S.No.88, Block No.1 at Ekkatuthangal Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District.C O M M O N O R D E R1. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. It has been stated that the the petitioners, in W.P.No.19558 of 2009, had purchased the property, which was a vacant land, bearing plot No.2, Achuthan Nagar, 5th Street, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai admeas...
Mrs.Gowri Pandiyanathan Vs. M.Chokkalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2, Salem in REP No.45 of 2010 in O.S.No.122 of 2004.ORDER1. Inveighing and challenging the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2, Salem in REP No.45 of 2010 in O.S.No.122 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(i) The first respondent herein-M.Chokkalingam filed the suit O.S.No.122 of 2004 for recovery of money, which he deposited with the father of the defendants. After contest, the decree was passed; as against which no appeal was filed. Thereafter E.P was filed for attachment and sale of the property left behind by M.S.P.Rajes, the father of the defendants; it appears counte...
Technical Stampings Automotive Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
W.P.Nos.18273 to 18275 of 2006 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent herein in TNGST No.1662041/2001-02, TNGST No.1662041/2003-04 and TNGST No.1662041/2002-03 respectively dated 31.3.2006 and quash the same insofar as denial of deferral of sales tax on the turnover of Rs.8,12,27,823/-, Rs.14,15,36,795/- and Rs.9,26,82,244/- respectively being turnover relating to sale of steel scrap made by the petitioners from their unit located at G.16-18, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu.COMMON ORDER1. The writ petitions are filed by one and the same company. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.18273 of 2006), the challenge is to the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the first respondent, i.e., Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer, Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle and he seeks to set aside the same insofar as it has denied deferra...
The Manager Bank of India Sivakasi Branch, Sivakasi Vs. S.T.S. Muruges ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to credit the cheque amount which was not issued by complainant, and to pay RS.25000/- as compensation alongwith cost of Rs.10000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.24.1.2011 in CC. No.42/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.3.2012. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) S. SAMBANDAM, MEMBER 1. The opposite party unable to succeed the case, filed by the Respondent/ complainant, have come before us as appellant, challenging the order dt.24.1.2011. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had opened a current account, as a proprietor of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »