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.
Devi and anr. Vs. the Special Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
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 relating to the order dated 26.9.2003 in Ni.Mu.(K1) 38950/01 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to grant joint patta to the petitioners in respect of the lands comprised in S.No.1/2 (137.10 acres) and S.No.9/8 (26.98 acres) in Sekkalakottai village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.O R D E R1. This writ petition came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 09.09.2011.2. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge an order of the first respondent viz.,the Special Commissioner- cum-Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai dated 26.09.2003 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to grant joint patta to the two petitioners in respect of the lands comprised in S.No.1/2 (137.10...
Gopal Chettiyar Vs. Represented by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records to set-aside the order of conviction passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thenkanikottai in C.C.No.66 of 2006, order dated 25.10.2007 convicted the petitioner to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 374 of IPC, and 12 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 16 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1975 and 12 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 17 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1978 and 12 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for an offence under Section 18 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 confirmed on appeal by the learned Additional Distri...
The Competent Authority. Vs. A.Sowkath Ali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
Writ Petition 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 third respondent in his proceedings in FPA No.12/MDS/2009 and FPA 13/MDS/2009 dated 06.09.2010, quash the same, thereby confirming the order passed by the petitioner in his proceedings dated 08.06.2009 in No. OCA/MDS/2924/2004 AND 2005/2007.O R D E R1. Prologue:-"Among the truly dangerous government powers is the federal asset forfeiture law, which allows the government to seize and basically keep any property supposedly used in the commission of a crime. Under this law your property is charged with the offense, which makes it a civil action rather than a criminal case. Even if your are never charged with a crime, or are charged and acquitted, it can take years and cost you a fortune to get back your own property. But if your are convicted of the crime the government is entitled to sell your property, with the proceeds divided among all the...
P.R.Perumal. Vs. State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set-aside the order dated 07.10.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.357 of 2007 in Special C.C.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the learned Special Judge-I / X Additional Judge, Chennai.ORDER1. The nutshell of the case are as follows:-The revision petitioner / accused No.19 had filed a discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him in Criminal Case in Cr.No.No.9/AC/96/HQ for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of IPC. The revision petitioner has stated that he has not abetted Mr.S.Kannappan, as alleged in the final report. There are no documentary evidence to prove that he has abetted Thiru.S.Kannappan to acquire assets in the forms of lands, house sites, house buildings, investment in banks and deposits as alleged in the final report. The revision petitioner had acquired the assets in his own name, but the investigation offic...
Smt.Sundari Vs. Smt.Sushila
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the entire records relating to C.A.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai, and set aside the judgement dated 10.03.2011 passed therein by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai, confirming the judgement dated 12.04.2006 made in C.C.No.296 of 2002 passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.This Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records pertaining to Crl.R.C.No.134 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court No.IV], Chennai and set aside the order dated 10.03.2011 passed thereon by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court No.IV], Chennai, dismissing the revision thereby refusing...
Mrs.J.Senthilkumari Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take further actions and implement the G.O.Ms.2029 (Revenue) dated 17.9.1990 issued under Sub Section (1) of Section of 18 of the Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act of 1961 as amended by TN Act 17 of 1970 and followed by letter of 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.A6/Em/Aar/4/1063/2002 dated 25.1.2002 by considering petitioners representation dated 5.3.2012 for allotment, within a time frame as may be fixed by this court.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take further actions and implement the G.O.Ms.2029 (Revenue) dated 17.9.1990 issued under Sub Section (1) of Section of 18 of the Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act of 1961 as amended by TN Act 17 of 1970 and followed by letter of 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.A...
M/S. Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
1. Heard both sides. 2. The present appeal was allowed by a short order after hearing both sides with the following observation:- “Both sides agree that the appellants have paid excess amount of service tax in advance, which has been adjusted against the future liability for the subsequent period. In such a case, lenient consideration is called for to allow such adjustment as was held in the case of Narnolia Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ranchi - 2008(10) STR 619 (Tri.-Kolkota). I order accordingly and set aside the impugned order including the penalty imposed.” (Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) 3. In an appeal filed by the Department, the following question was raised before the Hon’ble Madras High Court:- “Whether the Tribunal would be justified in allowing the appeal at the instance of the assessee by taking a lenient view for a claim of adjustment only on the ground that the assessee has paid excess amount in advance, ...
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parameswari and An ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
(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.35,000/- towards mental agony undergone by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the insured amount to the complainant. 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 5.7.10 in C.C.No.141/2009. The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.3.2012, 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, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant had insured her milch cow with the 2nd opposite party for Rs.15,000/- through the Kalleripatty, Karaikalam Women self help group and obtained loan from the 1st opposite party. Th...
M.Seeniammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
PRAYERWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fix the Time scale of pay to all the petitioners from the date of appointment and further to promote them as Aaya or Cook or Health Workers or Cleaner or Assistant Cook in the existing vacancies as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in A-M- Sa.Ku.No.334/Nir 6(3)/2002 dated 14.06.2011 and to grant all service benefits including seniority to the petitioners within a stipulated time.ORDER1. The petitioners 1 to 3 joined as Helper on 28.04.1992, 4th petitioner joined as Helper on 13.07.1993 and the 5th petitioner joined as Helper on 11.11.1994 in the Government Child Care Centre, Madurai under the control of the third respondent.2. According to the petitioners, they were paid a sum of Rs.170/- per month at the time of appointment. Subsequently, they were getting consolidated salary of Rs.795/-. Now they are getting salary at Rs.1,850/- per mon...
Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd Vs. the Assistant Regional Provident and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
PRAYERWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice of the first respondent in TN/MDU/Circle:2/Damages/TN/2298/ CA/05 dated 30.05.2005 and the order of the third respondent in ATA No.858(13)/05 dated 01.10.2010 and quash the same.ORDER1. The petitioner is a Textile Mill. The first respondent issued a notice dated 30.05.2005 stating that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.79,01,244.40/- towards the interest for belated remittance of contribution under the E.P.F. Act. The said interest is payable under Section 7(q) of E.P.F. Act. The petitioner did not send any reply to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, the first respondent passed an order dated 21.07.2005, directing the writ petitioner to pay interest as mentioned in the aforesaid notice dated 30.05.2005.2.The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal on 15.09.2005 before the third respondent Tribunal against the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »