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.
S. Gnanasekaran. Vs. the State Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of license for running the bunk shop business of selling coffee, tea and other allied eatable items at College Lane, Opp. To State Bank of India Local Head Office, Nungambakkam, Chennai.6 by the committee constituted for the said purpose on the basis of the representation dated 19.3.2012.ORDER1. This petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of license for running the bunk shop business of selling coffee, tea and other allied eatable items at College Lane, Opp. to State Bank of India Local Head Office, Nungambakkam, Chennai.6 by the committee constituted for the said purpose on the basis of the representation dated 19.3.2012.2. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person and is running a bunk shop in the addr...
G.Kuppuraj. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.14676/2011/A1, dated 19.8.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 1.9.2011 till the date of realization.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant, in the Town Panchayat, in the year, 1974. He had been promoted as a Head Clerk in the year, 1994, and later he had been promoted, as an Executive Officer Grade-I, in the year, 1998. Thereafter, he had been further promoted, as a Selection Grade Executive Officer in the year, 2001 and as an Assistant Director during the year, 2009. As such, the pe...
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S.Samema Begum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the award and decree dated 13.1.2005 made in MCOP.No.309 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore.J U D G M E N T1. The appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance Company has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for reduction of compensation as against the award 13.1.2005 made in MCOP.No.309 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore.2. The respondents 1 to 4, who are claimants in the abovesaid O.P have filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.25 lakhs for the death of deceased M.Shahabudeen in the motor accident. The petitioners have contended in the claim petition that on 29.8.2002 at about 3 pm, while the deceased was riding his motor-cycle bearing Regn.No.TN 45 R 7812 from west to east direction at the extreme left side of Panruti to Cuddalore main ...
Smt.M.Suseela Vs. the Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.334 of 2005:-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2004 in C.A.No.97 of 2003 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 04.03.2003 in C.C.No.8325 of 2003 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and enhance the compensation .Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2006:-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Dis No.3918 of 2005 in C.C.No.8325 of 2000, dated 18.07.2005 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, set-aside the same and permit the revision petitioner to withdraw the compensation as awarded to the revision petitioner in C.C.No.8325 of 2000.COMMON ORDER1. The revision petitioner herein / respondent / complainant has preferred the Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.334 of 2005 against the order of conviction and sente...
R.Muthu Gounder Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to maintain the 20 coconut trees standing on the petitioner's patta land comprised in S.No.36, Thondamandurai Panchayat, Koraiyaru, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District.O R D E R1. The petitioner has sought for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with his right to maintain the 20 coconut trees standing on his patta land comprised in S.No.36, Thondamandurai Panchayat, Koraiyaru, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District.2. Bare reading of the prayer sought for in this writ petition itself indicates that the petitioner has sought for a Mandamus to enforce only his private rights against the respondents alleging interference. In such circumstances, the remedy open to the petitioner is before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction.3. Pleadings and material on record also disclose...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. J.K. Transport
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. 1. Heard the learned SDR. 2. This appeal has been field without a copy of the show-cause notice. Initially the appeal was filed naming M/s. J.K. Transport as the respondent. Subsequently, a miscellaneous application has been filed to change the respondent as the person or persons whose identity is not known .. If the miscellaneous application is allowed it would make the appeal against an unknown person which is not permissible under the law. As such, the miscellaneous application is dismissed. 3. The appeal itself has been filed as per the review order passed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners wherein some defect in the impugned order has been pointed out. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for passing appropriate order after taking into account the grounds of appeal advanced by the Department. The stay petition also gets disposed of accordingly....
S. Balasubramanian, M/S. Vaasthav Decors Vs. Bhaskar Sethuraman
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2012
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.04.12 and 11.06.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. The opposite party is the appellant. 1. The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for doing carpentry work for the agreed sum of Rs.1,10,000/- on 03.08.2002 with condition to complete the same within 30 days for which on three occasions the complainant paid the amount by way of cheques for Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively on various dates and the complainant contended only 63% of works were completed and subsequently as the opposite party abandoned the work he was compelled to purchase materials and to complete the work by himself and thereby the complainant after giving notice filed the consumer complaint claiming direction for payment of Rs.60,592....
L.Jothilingam Vs. the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI,J.)1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petition - W.P.No.14839 of 2011 and declining to quash the order of respondent in R.C.No.15687/2011/D2 dated 12.12.2011 and also declining to issue direction to the respondent to issue computerised patta for the lands in T.S.No.74/2 in Tallakulam village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, appellants have preferred this appeal.2. The appellants claimed to be the owners of the land measuring an extent of 3.37 acres situated at T.S.No.74/2 in Tallakulam village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District through Will allegedly executed by their paternal grandfathers. Based on those Wills, the appellants have filed applications for grant of patta before the respondent. Earlier, appellants have filed two writ petitions - W.P.Nos.10916 and 10917 of 2011 seeking for a mandamus to direct the respondent to grant patta in favour of the appellants. Those writ petitions were disposed on 23.9.2011 ...
V.Jayakumar. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fifth respondent dated 21.04.2012 made in f/vz;/,/ep/bgh/(,&g)fhgl;L-nfh/vz;/2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to grant licence for carrying on the saw mill in the name of "Jayakumar Saw Mills" as per the recommendations made by the fourth respondent in the proceedings dated 03.05.2012 made in e/f/vz;/3356/2012/vy;.O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fifth respondent dated 21.04.2012 made in f/vz;/,/ep/bgh/(,&g)fhgl;L-nfh/vz;/2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to grant licence for carrying on the saw mill in the name of "Jayakumar Saw Mills" as per the recommendations made by the fourth respondent in the proceedings dated 03.05.2012 made in e/f/vz;/3356/2012/vy;.2. Mr.M.K.Subra...
T.R.Palanisamy. Vs. Hariharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Appeal filed under section 374 Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal dated 03.06.2003 made in C.C.No.257 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.JUDGMENT1. Complainant is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant has come forward with this appeal challenging the judgment dated 03.06.2003 made in C.C.No.257 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode2. The following are the allegations contained in the private complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2[a] The accused approached the complainant on 20.09.1999 for financial assistance and he borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant agreeing to repay the same within one month and issued a cheque on 20.09.1999 for Rs.1 lakh bearing No.RGE 686090 of Punjab National Bank, Sankari West (Salem) to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque on 03.11.1999 and the cheque was returned on 20.11.1999 unpaid with a memo "refer to drawer". Hence, on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »