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.
Mrs.Umarani and ors. Vs. Ravichandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 27.06.2003, passed in M.C.O.P.No.726 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Salem.JUDGMENT1. The dependents of a deceased Grade-I Police Constable are the appellants. 2. On 01.04.2002, in a road accident, the deceased had lost his life. It was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, owned by the first respondent, which has been insured with the second respondent. The Tribunal, totally awarded Rs.4,21,276/-.3. At the time of the accident, the deceased was a Grade-I Police Constable. Then he was 38 years old. As per Ex.A.10, salary certificate, his then monthly salary was Rs.6,146/-. The first appellant is receiving Rs.2,929/- as family pension. This was deducted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the multiplier '16'. It had also deducted 1/3rd, from the arrived income towards pleasu...
J.Vijayan. Vs. R.Ruthirasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Prayer :Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to his notice dated 11.2.2012 and 27.12.2011 respectively purported to have issued under Section 160 and 91 Crl.P.C. and quash the same.COMMON ORDER1. These two Writ Petitions arose out of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. Admittedly the two Writ Petitioners are borrowers from Chromepet Saswastha Nidhi Limited. Since the said Nidhi Limited have not paid back the dues to the depositors, the complaints were made and action has been initiated under the above Act. During the course of investigation, it transpires that some of the documents have also defaulted to the Nidhi. One such attachment was made in favour of R.Seshadri. He moved this Court in C.M.A.No.2231 of 2007, wherein Nidhi was impleaded as 2nd respondent. The learned Judge of this Court by order dated 30.8.2011...
A.Mohammed and Co. Vs. the Registrar, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take the appeal of the petitioners herein on the file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.O R D E R1. The petitioners have sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Registrar, Taxation Appeals Tribunal, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3, 1st respondent herein, to take the appeal of the petitioners on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.2. One of the partners of M/s.A.Mohammed & Co., has sworn to an affidavit, on behalf of the petitioners, wherein, he has contended that the petitioners have been served a notice on 20.11.2001 by the Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, 2nd respondent herein, in G.R.S.No.H027/00166, dated 15.11.2001, calling for objections to the proposed enhancement of property tax. The petitioners submitted their objections on 20.11.2001. They also filed a report from the Civil Engineer on 31.01.2...
P.Gurusamy Vs. the Special Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the records in (1) pro.Na.ka.Estt. 5(3)/57533/98 dated 03.08.2000 of the 1st respondent (2) pro.Na.Ka.No.39411/93/p1 dated 13.01.1998 of the 2nd respondent and (3) pro.Na.Ka.A5/5770/92 dated 08.03.1993 of the 3rd respondent quash the said orders.O R D E R1. The petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) in the year 1984. He was served with charge memo on 12.12.1992, alleging negligence of duty, for not having informed about illegal felling of trees and illegal quarrying, which had taken place on 09.12.1992.2. In the explanation to the charge memo, it was stated by petitioner, that he had taken charge in Poolandur Village, only on 30.10.1992, and on inspection, he found illegal felling of trees. He reported the matter to Pannakadu Firka Revenue Inspector on 06.11.1992.3. The petitioner submitted, that he was away from his work pl...
M.Manonmani Vs. the Director Department of Treasuries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the orders dated 16.07.2010 in Mandhanam 2/2009 A1 and dated 20.06.2011 in Na.Ka.No.43094/2010/Q3 issued by the 2nd and 1st Respondent respectively, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the Petitioner increment with all consequential benefits and also to include his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer for the years 2010 and 2011 and to promote him to the said post based on the Petitioner seniority with all arrears and consequential benefits award costs.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. It had been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a Junior Assistant at Ooty in the year, 1983. The petitioner has been working as a Superintendent in the Dist...
Logesh Reddy. Vs. K.V.Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decretal order dated 29.11.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.179 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Hosur.JUDGMENT1. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.179 of 2001, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation amount, directed this appeal.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, actually the rider of TVS-50 alone was responsible for the accident. However, the Tribunal had wrongly put 40% of the blame on the appellant and deducted 40% of the amount from the compensation amount. Further, less amount has been awarded as compensation.3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that based on the evidence adduced, the Tribunal had recorded such a finding and awarded the compensation amount.4. On 22.04.2001, at about 5.45 p.m., the appellant-Logesh Reddy had driven his Scooter keeping one Krishna Reddy as his pillion-rider. At that time, the TVS-...
M.Arjunan Vs. Mahesh and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 12.01.2005, made in C.C.No.209 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Perundurai.J U D G M E N T1. The Criminal Appeal arises out of the dismissal of the complaint preferred by the appellant/complainant which was taken on file in C.C.No.209 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Perundurai.2. The appellant/complainant has preferred a private complaint stating that there was a property dispute between the first accused/first respondent and the appellant/complainant for past 10 years and a case was also registered in Chennimalai police station in Crime No.10/2002, which is pending. The second accused/second respondent is Panchayat Board President. The appellant herein was canvassing for a party against A2. So there was an enmity between the appellant and A1 & A2/respondents herein. On 14.11.2001, at 7.30 p.m., when appellant and...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms.B.T.System and Service Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
PRAYER: Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, dated 04.01.2005 in ITA Nos.865 and 866/Mds/98, 448, 449 and 450/Mds/99 relating to assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Tribunal, relating to the assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96. The Tribunal passed a common order in respect of the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and the Revenue, for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively.2. It is seen from the records that the assessment for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3), granting relief under Section 80-O. Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax exercised his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, taking the view that the A...
S.M.Wood Packages. Vs. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Writ Petition No.14918 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's application under Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010 and issue licence to petitioner's Sawmill.Writ Petition No.14919 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's application under Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010 and issue licence to petitioner's Sawmill.COMMON ORDER1. Writ Petition No.14918 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's application under Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010 and issue licence to petitioner's Sawmill.2. Writ Petition No.14919 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents...
E.M.Manickam Vs. the District Educational Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay and settle the arrears of Terminal Benefits in terms of his claim representations dated 10.4.2010 and 16.8.2010 along with interest at 12% p.a. From 29.1.2010 till its settlement for the belated payment of Terminal Benefits.O R D E R1. Mr.S.P.Prabakaran, the learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.2. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 10.4.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submission...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »