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.
K. Radhakrishna Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records and quash the impugned order of the first respondent in O.O.No.CORP/HR/502/355/2012-29, dated 18.5.2012 (Ex 'A') insofar as petitioner is concerned, issued by the first respondent.O R D E R1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. Petitioner is challenging the order of transfer dated 18.5.2012 issued by the first respondent transferring the petitioner from the first respondent Office at Neyveli to the second respondent office at Tuticorin.3. The petitioner is working as Additional Chief Manager (Mechanical) i.e., Management Gr.I. The transfer order is challenged on the ground that the petitioner having been appointed in the first respondent office by order dated 15.7.1986 and the second respondent is the sister concern of the first respondent which has been established in the year 2008, petiti...
S.Mohan Vs. Rani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 16.2.2012 passed by the X Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai, in E.P.No.3964 of 2010 in O.S.No.654 of 2004.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 3 16.2.2012 passed by the X Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai, in E.P.No.3964 of 2010 in O.S.No.654 of 2004, this civil revision is filed.2. Heard both sides.3. In a few broad strokes, the germane facts could be encapsulated thus: The respondent herein filed the E.P. for arrest, by way of enforcing the recovery of the decreetal dues. After hearing both sides, the Executing Court ordered arrest.4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Executing Court, this revision is focussed by the judgement debtor on various grounds.5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant/judgement debtor, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth his arguements, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:(i) The lower Court committed gross er...
Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ms.Amal Generators Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench dated 31.05.2002 in I.T.A.No.629/Mds/1999 relating to the Assessment Year 1994-95.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Tribunal raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding the question of whether the receipt on account of surrender of tenancy rights could be taxed as capital gains cannot be looked at by them?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding the question of whether the assessee was in fact a tenant at the relevant point in time was a ground extraneous to the proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in n...
M.Kuppusamy Chetty. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.06.2012 and disburse the compensation amount payable to the petitioner towards his acquired land measuring 0.02.5 Hectare and 0.62.5 Hectare in Survey No.702/1 and 702/2 of Paruvadanaalli Village, Ponnagaram Circle, Dharmapuri District respectively.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.06.2012 and disburse the compensation amount payable to the petitioner towards his acquired land measuring 0.02.5 Hectare and 0.62.5 Hectare in Survey No.702/1 and 702/2 of Paruvadanaalli Village, Ponnagaram Circle, Dharmapuri District respectively.2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final dispo...
K.R.Khaleel Rahman Vs. the Special Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the order of Ceiling passed by the 2nd respondent in the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2537/97A dated 19.12.1997 pertaining to the petitioner's lands in S.No.77/1 and S.No.74/3 semancheri Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District measuring 49 = cents in S.No.77/1 and 71 cents in S.No.74/3 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to call for the records of the order of Ceiling passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2537/97A dated 19.12.1997 pertaining to the petitioner's lands in S.No.77/1 and S.No.74/3 Semancheri Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, measuring 49 = cents in S.No.77/1 and 71 cents in S.No.74/3, and quash the same.2. The petitioner is the owner of the land referred to above. The said l...
R. Sachithanantham Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the District Registrar, Myladuthurai, the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6378/A/2008 dated 15.6.2009 and to quash the same.ORDER1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the District Registrar, Myladuthurai, the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6378/A/2008 dated 15.6.2009 and to quash the same.2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 20.12.1974. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant on 1.4.1980. Thereafter, he was promoted to Sub Registrar Grade II on 7.11.92 and was promoted as Sub Registrar Grade I on 14.1.1999.3. The petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.6.2008. While the District Registrar, the 2nd respondent herein forwarded the pension proposal to the Accountant General, the 3rd respondent herein who raised objection...
Valiammal Vs. Kamala Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.924 of 2003 in O.S.No.76 of 1981.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.924 of 2003 in O.S.No.76 of 1981, this civil revision is filed.2. Heard both sides.3. In a few broad strokes, the germane facts could be encapsulated thus:(i) The original suit O.S.No.76 of 1981 was filed by the propositus of the respondents, namely, Doraisamy Naicker. Preliminary decree was passed. Thereafter, I.A.No.924 of 2003 was filed for final decree and it was passed on 30.1.2007.(ii) The revision petitioners herein, it appears, filed one I.A. under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C.for getting that final decree set aside on the main ground that it was an ex-parte one. But the said application was returned initially with certain endorsements and ultimately, it was returned as rejected. ...
Mrs. G. Vijayarani. Vs. Tamil Development Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 29.11.2004 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.O R D E R1. The petitioner has projected this writ of mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the second respondent to dispose of his representation dated 29.11.2004 within the period to be specified by this Court.2. According to the petitioner, her father K.G. Raju was a renowned Tamil Scholar and was known to his dedication towards the growth of Tamil language. He expired on 11.10.1985 leaving behind him his wife Jayamma and the writ petitioner (daughter).3. After the demise of the petitioner's father K.G. Raju, her mother Jayammal, as a dependant of her father, received a sum of Rs.400/- as pension per month. Later, the same was increased to Rs.500/- per month, which was received by her. F...
Indian Bank Vs. Ms. Poonachi Estate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.5.2005 in U.R.A.No.7 of 2005 on the file of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai against the order dated 5.1.2000 made in T.A.No.918 of 1997 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal No.1, Chennai.K.K.SASIDHARAN, J1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17 May, 2005 in U.R.A.No.7 of 2005 on the file of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai setting aside the ex parte decree dated 5 January, 2000 in T.A.No.918 of 1997 and directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the Original Application afresh on merits.The facts:2. M/s. Indian Bank, Pollachi Branch - the revision petitioner herein sanctioned financial assistance to respondents 1 and 2 under term loan scheme for raising coffee crops and other plantation crops in their estate at Pollachi. The Bank disbursed a sum of Rs.3,08,000/- on 3 November 1980 after securing equitable mortgage of the p...
G.Ganammal and ors. Vs. the Govt of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under section 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in G.O,Ms.248 Housing and Urban Development (U.D.III) dated 09.03.1994 and quash the same in so far as the petitioners land is concerned and direct the respondents to restore the above mentioned land to the petitioners.ORDER1. These writ petitions challenge the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act passed in G.O,Ms.248 Housing and Urban Development (U.D.III) dated 09.03.1994.2. The total extent of land sought to be acquired under the scheme of acquisition is an extent of 14.3 acres. The petitioners are the owners of 2.25 acres.3. Heard Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.S.Packiaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents.4. The scheme of acquisition relates to the formation of the inner ring road on the out skirts...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »