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.
Star Agro Marine Exports Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the case in impugned Order in Original No.18294/2012, dated 14.2.2012, passed by the respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to release the Shrimp covered under the Bill of Entry No.7.7.2011 imported for re-packing and to permit the re-export of the Shrimp after re-packing to the original buyer in Canada.M.JAICHANDREN, J.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. It has been stated that the petitioner Company is a regular exporter of various kinds of shrimps. The petitioner Company is registered under the Marine Products Export Development Authority Rules, 1972, as an exporter of the sea foods. The petitioner Company is a government recognised export house, with one star status. It is accredited with ISO-22000 for food safety, and it has also obtained the other necessary ap...
Ponnusamy (Died) and ors. Vs. Rathinam (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Civil revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the learned District Munsif, Perambalur to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.580 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Perambalur.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDER1. This civil revision petition is focussed to direct the learned District Munsif, Perambalur to dispose of O.S.No.580 of 1995 as expeditiously as possible.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this is a suit for partition, pending ever since 1995, and still the trial is going on at slow pace.3. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.4. In the interest of justice, the following direction is issued:The lower Court shall do well to see that the O.S.No.580 of 1995 is taken up for hearing and the same is disposed of by the end of July 2012, if there is no legal impediment.5. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs...
S.Sakthivel, Vs. the Assistant Engineer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to provide electricity connection to petitioner's shop portion at "SENTHIL TRADERS" No.75, Kundrathur Main Road, Opposite to Parimalam Theatre, Kundrathur, Chennai-600 069.R.SUDHAKAR, J.ORDER1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to provide electricity connection to petitioner's shop portion at "SENTHIL TRADERS" No.75, Kundrathur Main Road, Opposite to Parimalam Theatre, Kundrathur, and Chennai-600069.2. Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. In view of the nature of order to be passed in this matter, the notice to the second respondent is dispensed with. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner seeks commercial electricity service connection based on copy of rental agreement and has made a representa...
Ashish Nevatia Son of Pramod Kumar NevatiA. Vs. Prabhat Kumar Nevatia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of OS Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 and section 151 CPC to reject the plaint with exemplary cost and dismiss the suit in C.S.NO.366 of 2008.P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.ORDER1. The first defendant in the suit is the applicant in the application. The suit has been filed by the first respondent herein against the applicant and 23 others, who figure as respondents 2 to 24 in the application, for the relief of partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts.2. According to the plaint averments, the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia and his three sons, namely Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia, Srikrishna Nevatia (the father of the plaintiff/father of the first respondent) and Balakrishna Nevatia. The further case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendants 5 to 8 are the children of Srikrishna Nevatia and Bimla Devi. ...
A.J.Nanda Gopal Vs. A.J.Manavalan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Petition filed under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925 for the grant of probate.P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.JUDGMENT1. The petition is filed by the plaintiff A.J.Nanda Gopal under Sections 222 and 276 of the Indian succession Act, 1965 for the grant of probate of the last Will and testament of his mother A.J.Kuppammal (deceased) as O.P.No.327 of 2008 has been converted into a Testamentary Original Suit since the grant of probate sought for was sought to be opposed by A.J.Manavalan and M.L.Dhanalakshmi, the defendants herein by filing caveats and affidavits setting out the grounds on which they oppose the grant of probate. 2. After the conversion of the Original petition into a Testamentary Original suit and service of citation, the first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant.3. The averments made by the plaintiff in support of his claim for the grant of probate, in brief, are as follows:Plaintiff's moth...
Madura Coats Private Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. Heard both sides. Ld. DR raises a preliminary objection that the issue relates to grant of interest on rebate and hence the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and decide these appeals. 2. The learned Vice President of the appellant-company argues that the rebate claims have already been settled and what the appellants are seeking is interest under Section 11BB of the Act which is allowed for delayed sanction of refund. He, further, states that as per Explanation to Section 11B of the Act, refund includes rebate. His contention is that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide these cases. 3. After hearing both sides and considering the legal provisions, I find that as regards the rebate claims, the same have been sanctioned by the original authority and those are not in dispute. The dispute in this case, as stated by the ld. Vice President of the appellant-company, relates to interest on delayed payment of refund claims which, according to Explanation to Section 11B, also incl...
Girish M. Jain, Partner M/S. Samrat International Vs. Cc (Exports), Ch ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. Heard both sides. These two appeals have been filed by the department and the appellant assessee M/s. Samrat International (SI) against the very same impugned order. Appeal No. C/346/07 2. This appeal has been filed by the department. It is seen from the brief facts of the case recorded by the department in the departmental appeal that SI exported 17 consignments of Stainless Steel utensils earlier declaring the same to be of AISI304 grade under DEEC scheme. Subsequently, they entered for export two similar consignments which upon examination were found to be of different grade. The adjudicating Commissioner has imposed redemption fine and penalty in respect of the two consignments but has held the previous 17 consignments to have been correctly declared under DEEC Scheme vide para-27(e) of his order. In the department’s appeal this portion of his order is challenged, on the ground that the same adjudicating Commissioner had taken different view in respect of two other cases o...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S.V.K. Thampi and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.71,288/- together with interest at 18% p.a from 5.2.2007 till date of realization in full, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for the mental trauma, pain and suffering undergone by the complainant, to pay cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dated 10.3.2011 in C.C.No.60/2009. The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 9.4.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant had t...
Dr.C.Balasubramaniam and Another Vs. Subramani and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards wrong operation charges, to pay Rs.70,000/- towards second operation charges and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dated 29.7.10 in C.C.No.22/2009. The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 3.4.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) COMMON ORDER A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Opposite parties are the appellants come forward with separate appeals. 2. The complainant had undergone treatment with the 1st opposite partys hospital in which the 2nd ...
P.Senthilmurugan Vs. the Director and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
PRAYERWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.6605/E2/2009 dated 21.10.2009 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to approve the admission given in 1st year Arts and in 3rd respondent Institution.ORDER1. The petitioner is a differently abled person. He passed Higher Secondary examination with 40% marks during the year 2003.2. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.3159 of 2005, seeking for direction to the Education Department of the Tamil Nadu Government, to grant relaxation of the rules requiring 45% marks in the higher secondary examination for being admitted in Teacher Training Courses, since he is differently abled person. This Court disposed of the writ petition, by passing order dated 03.02.2005, directing the government, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.01.2005 and to pas...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »