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.
Dr.S.Vishwa Murti Vs. Union of India,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Quo-Warranto, directing the second respondent to answer to this Court, under what authority the 2nd respondent was holding the post of Chief of Army Staff and consequently direct the first respondent to strip the rank of the second respondent, dismiss him from service and stop his pay, benefits and the pension to the second respondent.O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)1. The petitioner, claiming to be the Founder-Chairman of the Awareness on Anti-Corruption Crime, a Non-Governmental Organization, registered as a Trust, has come forward to file this petition as a probono publico, praying to issue a Writ of Quo-Warranto against the second respondent, who is the Chief of Army Staff of India.2. In the long affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner, after giving brief history about their organization and its achievements, had stated that the second...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Samsudeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Civil Revision Petitions filed under section 115 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai dated 14.10.2004 made in C.M.A.Nos.2 of 2003 and 1 of 2003 respectively.COMMON ORDER1. CRP.NPD.No.492 of 2005 : This revision is directed against the order dated 14.10.2004 passed in CMA.No.2 of 2003 by the lower Appellate Court in modifying the market rate of the suit property by fixing it at Rs.500/- per sq.ft. to the total sale amount of Rs.21,25,000/- against the order passed by the trial Court made in CTOP.No.15 of 1985 dated 23.10.2002.2. CRP.NPD.No.493 of 2005 :This revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed in CMA.No.1 of 2003 dated 14.10.2004 in not reducing the market rate fixed by the trial court at Rs.400/- per sq.ft made in CTOP.No.15 of 1985 dated 23.10.2002.3. Heard Mr.S.Rajendran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.S.Sounthar, learned...
Madurai Central Market Vegetables. Vs. the Vilangudi Panchayat Union a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
R.BANUMATHI,J1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.3958 of 2010 (dated 31.10.2011), Appellant - Madurai Central Market Vegetables Perishable Commodities Merchants Co-ordination Association, Madurai has preferred this Intra-Court appeal.2. The members of the Appellant were carrying on their business in the heart of Madurai City. Since it was found to be a very congested place, they decided to shift the market to a location out side the City, they purchased land in R.S.Nos.115, 116/1 and 116/2 at Vilangudi Paravai village from(1) S.Ramasamy, (2) S.Muthukaruppan; and (3) S.Palaniappan and M.C.N.Manickam. For the purpose of putting up necessary constructions, Appellant Association approached the 1st Respondent - Vilangudi Panchayat Union for approval of layout. By its Proceedings Na.Ka.No.46/2005 dated 12.03.2008, 1st Respondent granted approval subject to certain conditions appended thereto. According to the stipulation contained therein, Appellant Associatio...
R.Asaithambi Vs. the District Collector.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
R.BANUMATHI,J1. This appeal arises out of the dismissal of W.P.(MD) No.3958 of 2012 declining to quash re-auction notification bearing Na.Ka.No.66/2012 A1, dated 02.03.2012 to re-auction for collection of licence fee from Weekly Sandy and Goat Sandy of S.Kannanur.2. Brief facts are that 2nd Respondent - The Executive Officer, S.Kannanaur Panchayat Union, Samayapuram issued notification in Na.Ka.No.66/2012/A1 dated 06.02.2012 calling for auction/tender on 29.02.2012 and 06.03.2012 to lease out various items mentioned in the schedule thereon for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015. On 29.02.2012, Appellant - Asaithambi participated in the open auction and offered the highest bid for collection of fee from Weekly Sandy and Goat Sandy and he offered a sum of Rs.29,03,000/- as the bid amount. The said amount offered by the Appellant was the highest bid and the same was accepted by the 2nd Respondent. As per the terms of the tender notification, Appellant was called upon to pay one-thir...
Ms.Unik Traders Vs. the Commissioner of Customs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
ORDER1. Praying for a direction to the respondent to assess and release Mono Sodium Glutamate totaling 506 Mts covered under Bills of Entry No.3618504 dated 26.05.2011; 4324694 dated 10.08.2011 and 4376254 dated 17.08.2011, after waiving detention and demurrage charges by issuance of a Detention Certificate in terms of Customs (Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas) Regulations, 2009, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are as under:2.1. The petitioner is in the trade of import and local sales of spices, condiments, food items, etc. for more than two decades and have been favoured with Import and Export Code No.0791011917 issued by the Office of the JDGFT, Bangalore, attached to the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. The said IE code is Annexure-A. The petitioner Concern is also assessed to Income Tax, besides local sales tax.2.2. In the course of their business, they placed orders with one M/s.Prudence Enterprises, Hong...
A. Mary Vs. the Director of Elementary Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
ORDER1. The petitioner was in possession of B.A (Tamil) and also B.Ed., at the time of appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher on 25.09.1987. Though she is having higher qualification, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.539 Education (M1) Department dated 21.04.1986, she was appointed as Secondary Grade teacher.2. The petitioner thereafter passed M.Ed., during November 1995. She claimed incentive increments for M.Ed., but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 15.03.2010 by the third respondent. Challenging the said impugned order, the petitioner has come before this Court by way of this writ petition.3. The third respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit, refuting the allegations made by the petitioner.4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.539 Education (M1) Department dated 21.04.1986, the petitioner could not seek for incent...
L.Rajendran. Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
PRAYERThis Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.C.No. 62 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge(FTC- II) Pattukkottai, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the Judgment dated 27.04.2005, acquit the appellants.1. The accused are the appellants. The present Appeal has been filed against the Judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions (F.T.C.-II), Pattukkottai, in S.C.No.62 of 2005, dated 27.04.2005 and the case has been tried under Section 302 which has been after due trial, the Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and convicted the the accused for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) each, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.01.2004 at about 06.30 a.m., ...
D.Pugazhendhi Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent herein to handover the possession of the union office building at No.176, Strahans Road, Pattalam, Chennai-600 012 to the petitioner herein.ORDER1. Prologue : How, I remember, one afternoon when two men who were unknown to me and whom I had never seen before came to me to speak about the sufferings of the workers. They mentioned the Buckingham & Carnatic Mills of which I had heard vaguely but of which I knew nothing. They spoke to me for several minutes about the workers hurriedly swallowing their meal and running for fear of finding the door shut. It was at the New India office where I worked under Mrs.Annie Besant ...... My theosophistic spirit had the better of my political duties. I hired a coach and accompanied them to the mill where I saw the workers during the few minutes for food at the midday interval, swallowing a ...
P.Natarajan Vs. the Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus forbearing the 2nd respondent from extending the lease for the collection of the toll for the daily market and weekly sandy of Tharamangalam selection Grade Town Panchayat to the respondents 3 and 4 by private negotiation and direct the 2nd respondent to issue notification for conduction Public Action in respect of the above items.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to forbear the 2nd respondent from extending the lease in favour of the respondents 3 and 4, for the collection of the toll in the daily market and the weekly shandy of Tharamangalam Selection Grade Town Panchayat.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had produced the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 23.01.2012, extending the license granted in favo...
P.Valayutham Vs. R.Venkatesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the learned Principal and District Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai to return the original sale certificate dated 09.11.2009 filed in court in E.A.No.23 of 2009 in E.P.No.15 of 2008 in O.S.No.15 of 2005 to the petitioner/court auction purchaser.ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner would air the cri de coeur of his client-the petitioner herein to the effect that a memo was filed by his client under Order 13 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for return of the sale certificate dated 09.11.2009, which was filed in E.A.No.23 of 2009; but the court returned the memo with the following endorsement:"This case was dismissed on 03.02.2012. Hence, the return memo to be filed after expiry of appeal time. Other side counsel, notice given and he endorsed opposed and he filed C.R.P. Hence, refused documents. Undertaking to be given. Hence, returned.Sd/- D....
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »