Chennai Court June 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.
C.Natarajan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
PRAYERWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the interest at 18% per annum on the belated payment of DCRG amount due to the petitioner from 30.11.2004 to 27.06.2005 and also direct the respondents to repay Rs.52,470/- recovered from the petitioner towards the alleged excess OD pay and Allowances with 18% interest per annum from 11.11.2005 to the actual date of payment.ORDER1. The petitioner was a Deputy Superintendent of Police. He retired from service on 30.11.2004, on reaching the age of superannuation. While, he was in service, an order dated 10.06.1998 was passed by the Home Department, Tamil Nadu Government for recovery of certain amount said to have been paid in excess in the salary of the petitioner. A consequential order dated 21.07.1998 was passed by the Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Chennai (Technical service). The petitioner filed O.A.No.6807 of 1998 before the Tribunal...
Ms. Gemini Pictures Circuit P. Ltd Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench, Chennai dated 22.3.2005 passed in GTA.No. 24/Mds/1995.(Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The present appeal is by the assessee by raising following questions of law :-"(1)Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law confirming the order of the Gift Tax Officer in bringing to tax the deemed gift on transfer of reversionary right attached to the property as being otherwise than for adequate consideration, ignoring the value of the tenancy rights granted?(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law directing adoption of the market value of the property for determining the deemed gift, while only the reversionary rights were transferred?(3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not holding that the transfer has to be valued as per Schedule II of the Gift Tax Act?"2. The assessee herein had transferred an immovable property measuring about 23.6 grounds of lan...
Thirupur Municipality Shop Merchants Vs. State Rep.by the Secretary an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent herein to allot the space of 16x500' on the Kamarajar Road for the members of the petitioners association, the existing lessee on the date of vacating shops to have their 33 shops situated on the date of demolition constructed at their own cost in order to have their profession according to article 19(1) (G) of the constitution of India.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent, to allot a space of 16x500' on Kamarajar Road, in Tirupur town, coming under the third respondent Corporation, to each and every one of the members of the petitioner association, to put up their shops and to carry on their business. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner association is that the shops had been loca...
T.Nagammal Vs. M.S.Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the Salary attachment order dated 02.11.2011 in E.P.No.39 of 2010 in O.S.No.654 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 02.11.2011 passed in E.P.No.39 of 2010 in O.S.No.654 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite printing the name of the respondent, no one appeared.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would echo the cri de coeur and the hot burns of his client to the effect that the money decree was passed on 04.10.2004 directing the revision petitioner/judgment debtor to pay a sum of Rs.53,320/- (Rupees fifty three thousand three hundred and twenty only) to the respondent together with 24% interest per annum for the principal amount of Rs.31,000/- from the date of filing of the plaint till the date of decree and thereafter, 6% per annu...
Sakthivel Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and final order dated 11.12.2009 made in E.A.No.43 of 2009 in O.S.No.356 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankarapuram.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 11.12.2009 passed in E.A.No.43 of 2009 in O.S.No.356 of 2004 by the learned District Munsif, Sankarapuram, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Despite printing the name of the respondents, no one appeared.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.4. The germane facts in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus:The specific performance decree was passed in favour of the revision petitioner on 17.06.2005 mandating that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- should be paid on or before 17.07.2005. However, the copy application was filed only on 24.08.2005 and the copy of the judgment and decree was obtained on 13.03.2007 and immediately thereafter, on 04.04.2007 E.A.No.43 of 2009 was filed under Section 151 of CPC...
N.Subbarayan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the respondent No.4 pertaining to his order which is made in Na.Ka.176/2005 dated 03.01.2007 and consequential relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to refund the amount of recovery of Rs.1,68,909/- to the petitioner and also direct the respondent No.5 to re-fix the retirement benefits of the petitioner by taking into account of the last pay drawn by him as on 30.06.2005 consequently directing the respondents to pay the arrears of retirement benefits including arrears of pension to the petitioner.O R D E R1. The petitioner joined the service as Secondary grade teacher (Tamil) at Kuravankudisai Village, Walaja Taluk on 03.08.1978. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (Tamil) on 10.08.1982 and thereafter as P.G. Assistant (Tamil) on 16.08.2003.2. T...
P. Suyambunadar Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
W.P. Nos.1423 & 1424 of 2010 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, by calling for records comprised in the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai since then abolished in O.A. No.823 of 1990 and quash the judgment dated 17.1.2002 pronounced by the Hon'ble Vice Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai and judgment dated 18.9.2001 passed by the Administrative Member of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.W.P. No.12531 of 2007 has been filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent in C.No.A1/8865/2001 dated 17.7.2003 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional.COMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.)1. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, the following common order is passed:-W.P. Nos.1423 and 1424 of 2010 are filed for issuance of a writ of ...
Chandran Vs. K.M.Muthusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and decretal order dated 07.08.2010 made in E.A.No.23 of 2009 in E.P.No.62 of 2008 in O.S.No.35 of 2002 on the file of the Additional district Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Erode.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 07.08.2010 passed in E.A.No.23 of 2009 in E.P.No.62 of 2008 in O.S.No.35 of 2002 by the learned Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:R2/Murugasamy filed the suit for specific performance and obtained the decree. Ultimately he got the sale deed executed in his favour. When he filed E.P. to take delivery of the property concerned, the revision petitioners herein three in number filed application under Order XXI Rule 36 of CPC claiming that they happened to be the tenants and they should not be evicted otherwise than in ...
K.Raman Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to issue patta to the petitioner's property comprised in S.No.288 at Polichalur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 3 acres of vacant land, situated within the office of the Sub Registrar at Pammal in Registration District of South Chennai.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the fourth respondent to issue a patta, in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the property comprised in S.No.288, Polichalur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, having an extent of 3 acres of vacant land.3. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the land in q...
G.Padmavdathi Vs. Hakeer Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 2.2.2012 passed by the III Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.685 of 2010 in O.S.No.267 of 2004.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 2.2.2012 passed by the III Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.685 of 2010 in O.S.No.267 of 2004, this civil revision petition is filed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein/defendant, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that I.A.No.685 of 2010 in O.S.No.267 of 2004 was allowed condoning the huge delay of 1370 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C.to get restored the suit, which was dismissed for default, at the trial stage. Counter was filed by the revision petitioner herein/defendant.After hearing both sides, the lower Court thought fit to condone the delay and accordingly, the delay was condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,620/-.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »