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.
K.K.Rajamanickam Vs. the Commissioner Vandiwas Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.01.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vandiwash, Tiruvannamalai District in I.A.No.860 of 2006 in O.S.No.60 of 2000.ORDER1. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(i) The original suit O.S.No.60 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff-Contractor as against the defendant-Municipality for recovery of certain amounts; whereupon exparte judgment and decree was passed; in order to get the exparte judgment and decree set aside, the said Municipality filed I.A.No.860 of 2006 and that was allowed.(ii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed in the I.A., the plaintiff/revision petitioner has filed this revision on various grounds including the one that there was enormous delay in fil...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bojraj Textiles Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench dated 28.01.2005 in ITA No.1027/MDS/1997. (Judgment of the Court was pronounced by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this Tax Case Appeal, relating to the assessment year 1994-95:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of the amounts spent on purchase of overhead travelling cleaner?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for hank yarn obligation is allowable as a deduction in this assessment year when the assessee has not fulfilled its obligation and textile commissioner had extended the time for fulfilment till 31.3.95?2. As far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, both counsel agree that the said issue is covered by the deci...
The Union of India Vs. Md Sikandar Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in respect of the impugned order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the second respondent in O.A. No. 571 of 2009 and quash the same.O R D E R (made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)1. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22.3.2011 passed in O.A. No. 571 of 2009, the Union of India has come with the present appeal.2. The facts leading to filing of the writ appeal are as follows :-The first respondent joined the All India Radio as Engineering Assistant in December, 1975 and was promoted as Senior Engineer Assistant in 1984 and further promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1989. Thereafter, the first respondent passed AIMETE from the Institute of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineers, New Delhi and got included in the Assistant Engineer eligibility list as on 01.01.2000. Subsequently, by order dated 26.3.2004, 88 Assistant Engineers were pro...
C.Paramasivam Vs. V.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 12.01.2012 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.68 of 2011 in ASCFR No.1733 of 2011, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court.3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of money based on promissory and after contest, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, E.P. was filed for attaching the property of the judgment debtor and selling the same for the purpose of recovering the decreetal dues. At that time, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed along with appeal memorandum before the appellate Court for getting the delay of 1065 days condoned in filing the appeal. The said application was heard by the appellate Court and the same was dismissed.4. B...
The Indira Nagar House Building Welfare Society Vs. the State of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to transfer patta in the revenue records and to reconvey the lands to the members of the petitioner association in respect of Survey No.94/3 in Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to transfer patta in the revenue records and to reconvey the lands to the members of the petitioner association in respect of Survey No.94/3 in Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem Taluk and District.2. Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 4 to 7. In view of the nature of order to be passed, the notice to the respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The writ petition has been filed for transfer of patta on the grounds that the Notification...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Wheels India Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Tax Case Appeals against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai A Bench, dated 27.09.2004 passed in I.T.A.Nos. 922,923/Mds/96 and 156/Mds/97 for assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The above Tax Case (Appeals) are at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal relating to assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 respectively. The above Tax Case (Appeals) are admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale proceeds of the exim scrips are eligible for the exemption under Section 10B?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the expenditure on gift articles as deduction as per rule 6B?3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in excluding the value of the customs duty from the closing s...
Rasu at Rajagopal Vs. Kamala Saraswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Puducherry in E.A.No.383 of 2010 in E.P.No.129 of 2008 in O.S.No.21 of 1988.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the fair and decreetal order dated 13.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Puducherry in E.A.No.383 of 2010 filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in E.P.No.129 of 2008 in O.S.No.21 of 1988, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(i) The original suit O.S.No.21 of 1988 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff herein seeking declaration and recovery of possession specifying the schedule of property; whereupon, the suit was decreed; as against which the first appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed; whereu...
R.Mani Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on and from March 2004 in respect of petitioners 1 to 3 and January 2001 in respect of the 4th petitioner as provided under G.O.Ms.No.199 dated 1997 with all consequential and attendant benefits.O R D E R1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners on and from March 2004 in respect of petitioners 1 to 3 and January 2001 in respect of the 4th petitioner as provided under G.O.Ms.No.199 Municipal Administration and Water supply department dated 12.8.1997 with all consequential and attendant benefits.2. It is the case of the petitioners herein that they were appointed as sanitary workers on consolidated pay in the Town Panchayat at Namakkal District by the proceedings of the respondents 2 and 3 dated 15.3.2001 and 21.1.1998 ...
P.Valayutham Vs. the Chief Engineer, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide electricity connection to petitioner's property bearing Survey No.308/34 in Eriyur Village, Chinna Salem, Villupuram District.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide electricity connection to petitioner's property bearing Survey No.308/34 in Eriyur Village, Chinna Salem, Villupuram District2. Mr.Varunkumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner seeks agricultural service connection based on old claim. He also relies upon the letter of the third respondent dated 1.11.2010 and the lawyer notice dated 22.3.2012 to claim for a mandamus as above. 4. Mr.Varunkumar, learned counsel for the respondents states ...
M.Madhu Vs. L.Mahalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2012
Civil revision petitions filed against the order in (i) I.A.No.164 of 2012 in I.A.No.295 of 2011 in O.S.No.143 of 2010 dated 04.04.2012 and (ii) I.A.No.295 of 2011 in O.S.No.143 of 2010 dated 15.02.2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Ootacamund.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris at Ootacamund in (i) I.A.No.164 of 2012 in I.A.No.295 of 2011 in O.S.No.143 of 2010 dated 04.04.2012 and (ii) I.A.No.295 of 2011 in O.S.No.143 of 2010 dated 15.02.2012, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court.3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two revisions would run thus:The respondent-father of the revision petitioner filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:"(a) Directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »