Chennai Court April 2012 Judgments
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
WP 21933/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) dated 16.3.2011 in so far as it relates to item No.(i), i.e., Gatifloxacin formulation of systemic use in human by any route including oral and injectable and direct the respondents to review the prohibition after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.WP 25442/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) No.139, dated 16.3.2011 and to quash the same in so far as it relates to ite...
Tag this Judgment!Emcete and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
Prayer: Writ petition in W.P.No.1000 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the acquisition proceedings made in G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 27.10.2011 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Part II Section 2 and consequential G.O.Ms.No.230 dated 28.11.2011 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Part II Section 2 and quash the same as ultra vires and unconstitutional.Prayer: Writ petition in W.P.No.1049 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Notification in G.O.Ms.No.124 Planning and Development and Special Initiatives (SI) Department dated 4.8.2011 issued by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners in Survey No.5/10 (New No.5/40) and Survey No.5/26 (New No.5/43) of an extent of 1201.5 Square Metres an...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Refineries Limited Vs. the Chief Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
W.P.No.4368 of 2009 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records connected with Case No.3232 of 2006 on the file of the first respondent, i.e., Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi and to quash the order dated 30.01.2009 made therein.W.P.No.26724 of 2010 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the Award dated 30.08.2010 passed by the first respondent/ Central Government Industrial - cum - Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.128 of 2001 and to quash the same.W.P.No.6371 of 2011 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records from the file of the first respondent in I.D.No.128 of 2001 and to quash the award dated 30.08.2010 passed therein.C O M M O N O R D E R1. W.P.No.4368 of 2009 is filed by the Management of...
Tag this Judgment!M.Palanisamy, So. Muniyandi. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
W.P.No.1221 of 2011 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that when the jurisdiction is restricted between the parties in contract, any order passed by the fourth respondent will be without jurisdiction and an abuse of process of court and not binding on the petitioner.W.P.No.10067 of 2011 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that when the jurisdiction with regard to the settlement of dispute is restricted between the parties by an agreement at Chennai, proceedings launched by the third respondent outside the agreed jurisdiction before the fifth respondent is not valid and binding insofar as the petitioner is concerned.COMMON ORDER1. The petitioner has filed both writ petitions seeking for a writ in the nature of declaration declaring that by the contract if the parties have restricted settling of disputes between them at a parti...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakant. Vs. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Declaration declaring the impugned resolution dated 02.02.2012 passed in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, which was communicated to the petitioner in the D.O.Lr.No.1626/2012-1/TNLA(O.P1) dated 03.02.2012 as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.O R D E R1. The petitioner is an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from Rishivanthiyam Assembly Constituency. He is also the leader of the Opposition, by virtue of being elected as the leader of the D.M.D.K. party which has the largest number of elected members other than the party which formed the Government. He has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the resolution of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly, suspending him for a period of ten days.2. I have heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel representing Dr.S.Manimaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.S.David Amirtha Rajan Vs. M.Davamani Christober and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
B. Rajendran, J1. The Writ Appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful second respondent in the writ petition aggrieved against the direction of this Court directing the first respondent/Madurai Kamaraj University to consider the application in regard to grant of approval of the petitioner's educational qualification to be appointed as the Principal and Secretary of the American College, Madurai.2. The facts of the case are as follows:Originally, the writ petitioner has prayed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the first respondent in the writ petition to consider his application dated 14.11.2011 in regard to grant approval of his educational qualifications to be appointed as a Principal and Secretary of the American College, Madurai. According to the writ petitioner, he has only sought for the consideration of his application to a limited extent that his qualification as he has obtained enough to hold the post of the Principal and Secretary of the college. Though originally in th...
Tag this Judgment!R.Chandrakala Vs. M.Sankaranarayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
B. Rajendran, J1. The fourth and third respondents in the Writ Petition have come forward with these Writ Appeals aggrieved against the order of this Court cancelling the appointment for the post of Nathaswaram Musician. The fourth respondent, the selected candidate and the third respondent, the temple have filed separate Writ Appeals.2. Since both the appeals arising out of one and the same issue both the appeals are taken up together and a common judgment is delivered by consent of both parties.3. The writ petition has been filed originally by the first respondent challenging the appointment of the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.806 of 2008 as Nathaswaram Musician in the appellant temple(W.A.(MD).No.773 of 2008). It is averred in the writ petition that in respect of a lone vacancy for the post of Nathaswaram Musician, originally an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 04.10.2007. As per the notification, the required qualification was that a Certificate from the Government Music ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. First Track Traders. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
B. Rajendran, J1. The Writ Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging the dismissal of the writ petition by order dated 01.03.2012.2. According to the appellant, he is an importer and he has imported used materials which does not require licence . Therefore, the insistence of the department in asking for the licence and levying penalty does not arise. The facts of the case are as follows:2.1. The appellant Concern has been engaged in the import and trading of digital multifunction printing and copying machines as also the photocopier machines and its accessories, parts and consumables. During the course of its business, it has imported a consignment comprising of 104 units of old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines of various models and 10 units of old and used photocopying machines from the overseas supplier viz. M/s. Jade Group Ltd. (Br) Sharjah, UAE, covered by Invoice No.5113 dated 07.04.2011 for a total CIF value of USD 24750 and filed the ab...
Tag this Judgment!South Kallikulam Catholic Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
R.BANUMATHI,J1. As to who is to be in management of South Kallikulam Catholic Christian Nadar Mahamai Sangam (Reg.No.8/1951), South Kallikulam Village and consequently, Correspondent of Kamaraj Middle School of Kallikulam village is the subject matter of dispute in this Writ Appeal arising out of the order in W.P.(MD)No.14160 of 2011.2. Factual background:- Therkku Kallikulam Catholic Christain Nadar Mahamai Sangam (for short, Nadar Mahamai Sangam) is an educational agency of Kamaraj Middle School, which is located in the same Therkku Kallikulam Village. The President of the said Sangam shall be the correspondent of Kamaraj Middle School, Kallikulam for his tenure as the President. Kamaraj Middle School Therkku Kallikulam which is managed by the said Sangam is an aided school and the government is paying the entire monthly salary of the approved teachers of that School. Appellant was elected as the President for the said Sangam for a period of 3 years from 1.11.2009 and hence approved ...
Tag this Judgment!A.Abdul Gafoor Vs. N.Akhila
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2012
Prayer:- Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order dated 22.01.2011 and made in C.M.P.No.134 of 2010 in M.C.No.217 of 2009 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore.ORDER1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-The respondent herein / wife had filed a maintenance case for her minor child and herself in C.C.No.217 of 2009, on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore against the revision petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., stating that the respondent / husband married her 06.01.2005, in the presence of elders, as per Islamic Rights and Customs, at Coimbatore. At the time of marriage, the respondent's parents had given 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry to the revision petitioner / husband. Besides this, valuable sarees, cloths and furniture were given. The respondent further stated that out of wedlock, she gave birth to a female child on 08.11.2005, who is the second respondent herein. Immediately after marriage, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »