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.
S. Gopalan Vs. the Commissioner, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents relating to the impugned letter dated 11.10.2011 issued by the Second respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to forbear them from in any interfering the petitioner peaceful administration of the temple affairs.O R D E R1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.2. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the impugned show cause notice issued by the second respondent, dated 11.10.2011, asking the petitioner to appear for an enquiry, relating to the issues connected with the hereditary trusteeship of Sri Anjaneyar alias Anumantharayar Koil, Saidapet, Chennai. As such the writ petition is not maintainable.3. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for th...
Pavunambal and ors. Vs. Shanmugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Prayer in S.A.No.1751 of 2004: This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.2002 made in A.S.No.117 of 2001 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.06.2001 made in O.S.No.103 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurantakam.Prayer in S.A.No.1752 of 2004: This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.2002 made in A.S.No.18 of 2002 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.06.2001 made in O.S.No.103 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurantakam.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T1. The Appellants/Defendants 2 and 3 have projected these Second Appeals as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.2002 in A.S.No.117 of 2001 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu and also, as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.2002 in A.S.No.18 of 2002 passed by the Learned...
V.Ramasamy Vs. the Managing Director,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent comprised in his communication dated 17.12.2011 bearing Reg.1/Emp No.53/AA/GAD and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently directing the second respondent to revoke the suspension of the petitioner as made in the order dated 07.01.2011 bearing Ref.53/2011/GAD-CA issued by the first respondent within a period.O R D E R1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the impugned order dated 17.12.2011, passed by the second respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner to revoke the order of suspension dated 07.01.2011 passed by the first respondent.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined in REPCO Bank on 18.03.1983 as Clerk-cum-Typist. In the year 1993, he was promoted to the post of Officer in Assistant Manager cadre and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant General...
Ramasamy Vs. Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
PRAYER: Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2006 made in MCOP No.45 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Mettur.J U D G M E N T1. Ramasamy, father of the deceased in a road accident, is the appellant.2. The appellant, lost his son in a road accident, in which vehicle of the first respondent was involved, which has been insured with the second respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mettur, assessing the evidence let in before it, came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the rider of the offending two-wheeler was not duly licensed to drive it. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had directed the first respondent to pay the quantified compensation amount and exonerated the insurance company. As against that, the father of the deceased is before us.3. The learned counsel for the appellant is not disputing the determination of the Tribunal that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not duly lice...
Senkadir. a Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent relating to the impugned order dated 05.04.2010 bearing ref.4738/PHB/Estt/E-3/2009-2010, No.4740/PHB/Estt/E-3/2009-2010 dated 05.04.2010 and Notification No.1487/PHB/Estt/E-3/2009-10/518, dated 03.09.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to fill up the post Junior Engineer (Civil) as per the notification dated 09.10.2009 bearing ref.1487/PHB/Estt/E-3/2009-2010 and consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and appoint to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).O R D E R1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent relating to the impugned order dated 05.04.2010 bearing ref.4738/PHB/Estt/E-3/2009-2010, No.4740/PHB/Estt/E-3/2009-2010 dated 05.04.2010 a...
The Executive Engineer Vs. Balarama Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.03.2001 made in A.S.No.11 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1999 made in O.S.No.47 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.JUDGMENT1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.11 of 2000 dated 30.03.2001 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.47 of 1998 dated 28.04.1999 in decreeing the suit.2. The appellants herein were the defendants and the respondent herein was the plaintiff before the trial court.3. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint would be as follows:- On 15.03.1982, the plaintiff applied to the defendants/ Electricity Department for agricultural electric service connection to his land in S.No.208/2A in Mangavaram Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk. Acknowledging the same, the defendants...
N.Padmavathiammal Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondents to sanction and pay increments and other monetary benefits to the petitioner by taking into account her service with effect from April 1996.O R D E R1. The petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Hindi Pandit in the Government Upper Primary School, Thirupathisaram, and thereafter appointed, as full-time Hindi Pandit. In the year 1968, on the introduction of the second language formula, the post of Hindi Pandit was abolished. The petitioner, along with other Hindi Pandit, was posted as untrained Hindi Pandi with effect from 16.08.1968.2. The petitioner was sent as in service candidate for Secondary Grade Teacher's Training course in April 1970. The petitioner successfully completed training, therefore, became eligible to hold the post of Secondary Grade Assistant.3. Though the petitioner was qualified Secondary Grade Assistant from April 197...
T.Nirmala Vs. the Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from in any manner granting the licence for collection of fees from the users of the Public Convenience in Cuddalore Municipal Bus Stand that is the subject matter of Item 13 of the Auction notification issued by the first respondent dated 22.12.2011 placed as Item No 13 in the Regular meeting of the Cuddalore Municipal Council on 17.02.2012 and consequently direct the respondent to confirm the auction in favour of the petitioner.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels for both sides.2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from, in any manner, granting the licence, for the collection of fees from the users of the public convenience, in Cuddalore Municipal Bus Stand, which is a subject matter in the Tender-cum-Auction notification, dated 22.1...
Dr.S.Jagatrakshagan Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. Tax Case (Appeals) are at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Tribunal by raising following questions of law:-"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the benefit of declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme is not available to the appellant in respect of the departmental appeal in I.T.A.No. 2015/Mds/98?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the appellant by way of interest and allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as wholly and exclusively necesasary for earning the income subject to tax is not eligible to be deducted in computing the income liable to tax?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in concluding that the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- represents the appellant's inc...
R.indirani Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2012
Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of her retirement and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, and if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits, within a specified time.3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has no objection for this Court passing such an order.4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to...
- ‹ Prev
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- Next ›
- Last »