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.
T.RekahA. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of a writ of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order in GD.No.209/2011-12 of the third respondent dated 10.3.2012 herein and quash the same and further direct the respondents to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA 01 AA 3447 belonging to the petitioner forthwith.ORDER1. With the consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The brief facts arising under the impugned order are as follows:-The petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing Regn.No.kA 01 AA 3447. The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of transporting goods by lorry. On 1.2.2012, the diesel generator engine was entrusted to the petitioner for transporting the same from the State of Maharashtra to the Union Territory of Puducherry. The consignor is M/s.Kirloskar Oil Engines Private Limited. The consignee is M/s.Sun Be...
R. Srinivasan Vs. the Registrar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to order passed in O.A. No. 871 of 2010 vide order dated 21.6.2011 on the file of the first respondent and set aside the same and consequently set aside the factory order No. 16 dated 01.01.2009 insofar as it promote the fourth respondent to the post of Chargeman Group (II) NT/Stores and it fails to promote the petitioner as Chargeman Group (II) NT/Stores with effect from 01.01.2009 with all consequential benefits or alternatively and if so needed by creating supernumerary post of Chargemen Group (II) NT/Stores.Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order passed in O.A. No. 75 of 2010 vide order dated 21.6.2011 on the file of the first respondent and set aside the same.COMMON ORDER(made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)1. Since the issued involved in...
Kunjayee at Kaliyammal Vs. A.P.Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Sub ordinate Judge, Tiruchengode in R.E.A.No.38 of 2011 in R.E.P.No.18 of 2011 dated 20.01.2012O R D E R1. Succinctly and summarily, the relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus:-a)The parties are referred to here-under according to the litigative status and ranking in the lower court.b)The revision petitioner herein namely, Kunjaee @ Kaliyammal, is the judgment debtor in R.E.P.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Court, Tiruchengode and the respondent herein namely, A.P.Palanisamy is the decree holder therein who filed execution petition for getting the sale deed executed in his favour through court and in pursuance of the specific performance decree obtained in O.S.No.331 of 2004 on the file of Sub court, Namakkal; while so, the revision petitioner herein filed R.E.A.No.38 of 2011 under ...
Nataraj. Vs. State Rep.by Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
C O M M O N O R D E R1. In view of the fact that all the petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused in Crime No.RC 09(S)/2011/CBI/SCB/Chennai, seeking bail, all the cases have been taken together and a common order is passed.2. In order to appreciate the contentions and rival contentions of the learned counsels appearing for both sides, it is rather necessary to recapitulate the factual matrix surrounding the case.Facts in brief:3. The case of the prosecution is that there was a political enmity between the two parties during the Assembly Election conducted in the year 2006. The defacto complainant was a Minister for Education and Commercial Tax, Government of Tamil Nadu, at the relevant point of time. Both the parties belonging to the accused and the defacto complainant contested against each other.4. The accused persons conspired with each other and in furtherance to it on 08.05.2006 sent hired criminal elements to attack the defacto complainant and his men. One of the person be...
The State of Tamilnadu Vs. Tvl.Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
REVISION Petition filed before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal to revise the order dated 05.04.1998 made in Tribunal Appeal Nos.126, 127,124 and 125 of 1998 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai for the assessment years 1988 -89 to 1991-92.C O M M O N O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. Following is the substantial question of law raised in these Tax Case Revisions filed at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessment years 1988 -89 to 1991-92:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the transaction in question is not indivisible works contract executed in Tamil Nadu,is correct and as a corollary, deletion of levy of penalty under Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, is correct?"2. The assessment for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 are revision of assessment and the assessment for the assessment year 1991-92 is the origi...
Syed Akbar Vs. A.Raheela Ismail
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 28.9.2011 passed by the District Munsif, Court, Salem, in R.E.P.No.379 of 2011 in O.S.No.673 of 2011.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 28.9.2011 passed by the District Munsif, Court, Salem, in R.E.P.No.379 of 2011 in O.S.No.673 of 2011, this civil revision petition is focused.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 first respondent-Raheela Ismail filed the suit O.S.No.673 of 2011 as against Rahman-the second respondent/judgement debtor for obtaining delivery of possession and permanent injunction. Ultimately, the suit was decreed. Then REP No.379 of 2011 was filed and delivery was obtained.(ii) It appears, during the pendency of the REP No.379 of 2011, and without allegedly knowing about the pendency of the R.E.P., the revision petitioner herein Syed Akbar, son of Abdul Rahman, filed a separate suit O.S.No.864 of 20...
Nps Employees Reformation Association. Vs. the General Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent dated 04.11.2011 bearing letter No.006/VI/2011 and to quash the same with consequential direction to the respondents to consider the representations dated 17.10.2011, 24/12/2011 and 01/02/2012 of the Petitioner Association to grant necessary permission for holding the Extraordinary General Body Meeting within the premises of the respondents Factory.O R D E R1. The petitioner is a recreational club of employees working in Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi. In tis Writ Petition, the petitioner association sought for permission to conduct Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 14.11.2011 in the premises of the factory and in the hall known as Vijayantha Institute. The Joint General Manager of the Factory as well as Ex-officio Chairman of the Association informed the Secretary of the petitioner association that permission for conductin...
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation L ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2012
(The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the ticket fare, alongwith compensation of RS.50000/- and cot of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.31.3.2010 in CC. No.98/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open courtJ A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (Open court) 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties, for deficiency in service, regarding the negligence in providing the reserved seats booked for the travel, with the opposite partys bus service betw...
Kanna Konar Son of Parvatha Konar Vs. Kanniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.32/2003 dated 08.12.2004 on the file of District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District confirming the judgment and decree as made in O.S.No.613/1995 dated 21/03/2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai.1. The present Second Appeal has been brought by the unsuccessful defendant No.3-Kanna Konar who last his case both before the learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court at the hands of his own sister s purchaser/plaintiff-Kasambu Konar.2. (i) The plaintiff-Kasambu Konar being purchaser of the suit property from one Saroja-D7 by sale deed dated 14.12.1994-Ex.A2-75 cents of land filed a suit stating that the suit property originally belong to one Vediappa Konar, Son of Ramasamy Konar and the Vediappa Konar had given the said property to his daughter Chinnakannu Ammal as stridhanam under the deed dated 12.4.1946. The said Chinnakannu Ammal had been enjoying the property in S.No.14...
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport.Vs. the Presiding Officer a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records concerning with I.D.No.31 of 2004 dated 18.12.2008 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records concerning with I.D.No.31 of 2004 dated 18.12.2008 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, which ordered that the second respondent should be reinstated with continuity of service without back wages. The second respondent has not challenged that award. The second respondent worked as a conductor in the petitioner Transport Corporation. On 2.4.2003, the bus TN-27/N-1113 was operating from Chidambaram to Salem. The Ticket Inspector examined the bus at Vadaloor. It was found that 5 passengers were having tickets showing the price at Rs.10/- each, but in the offic...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »