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.
R.Chandrasekaran Vs. S.Karthik and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
These civil revision petitions are filed against the judgment dated 3.2.2012 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, (Rent Control Appellate authority), Principal Subordinate Judge, in R.C.A.Nos.684, 686, 688, 690, 692, 695 of 2011 in ordering redelivery setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Rent Controller, Executing Court, in E.A.Nos.136, 137, 139, 129, 133, 131 of 2011 in E.P.No.263 264, 265, 266, 267, 1200 of 2010 in RCOP Nos.1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 268 of 2007, respectively.COMMON ORDER1. Animadverting upon the common judgement dated 3.2.2012 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, (Rent Control Appellate authority), Principal Subordinate Judge, in R.C.A.Nos.684, 686, 688, 690, 692, 695 of 2011 in ordering redelivery in favour of six second respondents herein, setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Rent Controller, Executing Court, in E.A.Nos.136, 137, 139, 129, 133, 131 of 2011 in E.P.No.263 264, 265, 266, 267, 1200 of 2010 in RCOP N...
The State of Tamilnadu Vs. Tvl.Eastman Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
PETITION filed before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal to revise the order dated 30.3.2001 made in Coimbatore Tribunal State Appeal No.10 of 2000 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore. After the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to this Court and renumbered.O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The Revenue has filed the present Tax Case (Revision) as against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1997-98 raising the following substantial questions of law:"1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred by holding that in the absence of a specific provision under the respective Acts, the modification has to be followed while specific provision by way of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act has been enacted by Central Act 103 of 1976 with effect from 1.5.1976 itself?2. Whether the Tribunal...
Velmurugan Distributors Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Commer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Prayer:- Tax Case Revision filed under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in Coimbatore Tribunal Appeal No.62 of 1995, dated 04.09.1997.O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAO.)1. This tax case revision is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in Coimbatore Tribunal Appeal No.62 of 1995, dated 04.09.1997.2. The brief facts, that are necessary for the disposal of this tax case revision, are as follows:-(a).The petitioners are dealers in gas lighters and they are doing business at No.779, Edayar Street, Coimbatore. They have reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.2,09,373.00 for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessment in respect of the item in question was originally assessed by the Assessing Offic...
A.Balamurugan. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the concerned records relating to order No.R2/0434/2012 dated 12.03.2012 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to undergo the renal transplantation in the 5th respondent hospital.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 12.03.2012 and after setting aside the same seeks for a consequential direction to permit the petitioner to undergo the renal transplantation in the fifth respondent hospital.2. By the impugned order, the General Manager of the respondent TASMAC informed the petitioner that for the purpose of undergoing renal transplantation, under the provisions of Health Fund, maximum only Rs.1 lakh can be given. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to undergo treatment and thereafter, claim the amount as p...
S.Amirthamani. Vs. N.Mahalingam and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 13.03.2007 made in C.A.No.133 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore, which modified the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 20.03.2006 made in C.C.No.539 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore.ORDER1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-The respondent herein / complainant had registered a case in C.C.No.539 of 2004, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore against the revision petitioner / accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the accused had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.37,255/- dated 25.09.2003, to and in favour of the complainant, in order to discharge the business transaction amount. The said case was tried on merits and the learned Magistrate had come to a conclusion that the accused had committed...
Shree Pacetronix Ltd. Vs. Controller of Stores and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of Tender Notice bearing reference No.6/12/OT/5010 issued by respondent No.1 and quash the same insofar as it seeks approval by USFDA for intended clinical use in USA for supply of Dual Chamber Pacemaker (for short DDD) and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's offer fairly for supply of Dual Chamber Pacemaker with CE or / DGCI certification / approval instead of approval by USFDA for intended clinical use in USA.ORDER1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Company seeking to challenge the Notice Inviting Tender issued by the first respondent, i.e., Controller of Stores, Southern Railway, Chennai and to set aside the condition insofar as it seeks approval by USFDA for intended clinical use in USA for supply of Dual Chamber Pacemaker (for short DDD) and for direction to respondents to consider the petition...
C.Venkatesan Vs. the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings bearing Nos.Se.Mu.Pa.Mu.No.6491/2010/A2 dated 25.08.2010 and Se.Mu.Pa.Mu.No.6490/2010/A2 dated 25.08.2010 and to set aside the same as illegal, erroneous, unjust and without jurisdiction.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Nos. Se. Mu.Pa.Mu.No. 6491/2010/A2 dated 25.08.2010 and Se.Mu.Pa.Mu.No.6490/2010/A2 dated 25.08.2010.2. The petitioner submits that he is a devotee of Vaikunda Perumal and Embar Swamy Devasthanam Temple, situated at Maduramangalam, Kancheepuram District. The petitioner also claims to be the Trustee of the Temple.3. Vaikunda Perumal and Embar Swamy Devasthanam Temple is one of the oldest Temple in the State with its own specialities. The Temple owns immovable properties and one ...
Dr.S.Natarajan and ors. Vs. the Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of the 4th respondent in G.O.Ms.No.39, Agriculture (AU) Department dated 01.03.2010 and to quash the same insofar as retaining age of 60 years for superannuation in respect of the petitioners are concerned and consequently direct the respondents 4 to 7 to fix the age of superannuation of the petitioners at 65 years with effect from 30.06.2010.O R D E R1. The petitioners have invoked equitable jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned G.O.Ms.No.39, Agriculture (AU) Department dated 01.03.2010 fixing the age of retirement of the professors as 60 years, with a further direction that they shall not be reemployed.2. The impugned part of G.O is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it is contrary to the Statutory Regulations of the University Grants Commi...
L.V.Bhaskaran Vs. State Represented.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
JUDGMENT1. This appeal challenges the order of conviction convicting the accused under Section 7 of P.C. Act 1988 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act r/w 34 IPC and sentencing both the accused to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months each for each of the charges [Total fine Rs.8000/- + Rs.8000/- = Rs.16,000/-] in Calendar Case No.21/2004 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases at Madurai dated 15.11.2005.2.Following is the brief account of the prosecution case :- [a] P.W.2 is owning rubber estate at Cithironcode, in Kanniyakumari District. The building bearing Door No.6/118 in Verkilambi Town Panchayat originally belonged to his father by name I.Gnanaprakasam. He leased to the said building to the Telephone Department for Manakkavilai Telephone Exchange for monthly rent of Rs.3000/- from 15.01.1999. Gnanaprakasam died in November 2002. By virtue of a registered Will dated 18.10.2000...
R.Pandiar Vs. the State Rep. by the Inspector.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
ORDER1. The criminal revision has been preferred under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 08.03.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.92 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judge for (TNPID) Act cases, Madurai in C.C.No 45 of 2008.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.3. It is seen that the revision petitioner was arrayed as A4 in the case in C.C.No.45 of 2008 registered for an offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(b)I.P.C and 5 of TNPID Act, 1997. The petitioner herein had filed criminal revision before the Court below seeking discharge by filing petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and the same was dismissed by the Court below, aggrieved by which, the revision has been preferred.4.Mr.Shajahan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/A4 is an innocent person and he had joined in Navaguru Auto Finance Firm, as a partner o...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »