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.
P.Senthilnathan Vs. the Secretary, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to letter ref. No. 800/2019-25 Sa.Ma.Pe.Se.(Vi.Ni.2) dated 4.6.2012 of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant licence in favour of the petitioner to run the Cable TV Network under the name and style of Moon Star Cable TV Network at "B" Block, Ground Floor Legislative Assembly Members Residential Quarters, Chennai 2.O R D E R1. The petitioner is having Cable TV Network and called in the name and style of Moon Star Cable. The petitioner is also servicing the quarters in which the members of the Legislative Assembly are situated within the Omanthurar Government Estate at Chennai-2.2. The petitioner was given a permission letter dated 20.08.2001 by the Deputy Speaker on behalf of the Principal Secretary of the Assembly Secretariat asking him to provide the cable TV connection to the MLA quarters on an Ex...
V.Durairaj and ors. Vs. P.Aranganatham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 08.12.2006 made in I.A.SR No.17532 of 2006 in O.S.No.1396 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 08.12.2006 passed in I.A.SR No.17532 of 2006 in O.S.No.1396 of 1994 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.D.Babu Varadarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Sounthar, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent were present. Heard both.3. I am of the considered view that no notice to the other respondents who happened to be the legal representatives of the original deceased defendant Aranganatham Pillai is required. The fourth respondent also is one among the L.Rs. of the deceased Aranganatham Pillai.4. The short point for consideration is as to whether the trial Court was justified in simply returning the...
M/S. Srf Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2012
Per D.N. Panda, J. 1. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in C.M.P.948/2004 disposed on 12.9.2011 remanding the matter to the Tribunal for its consideration. The matter came up for hearing today. The order under challenge by Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court was against the order of the Tribunal dated 11th July, 2005 holding that CENVAT credit on furnace oil used for generation of power and transmitted to other company was admissible to appellant. 2. When the remand matter was taken up for hearing, submission of the appellant was that Appeal Nos.E/388/2008 and E/562/2010 being of the same nature pending before the Tribunal, all the three may be heard together and disposed of. Revenue agreed to such submission. It was submitted by the ld. Counsel that different amount of duty demand and levy of penalty are involved in all the three appeals for the same cause of disallowance ...
Y.Mary. Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first and second respondents to sanction / approve the post of Physical Education Teacher in L.M.S. Girls Higher Secondary School, Marthandam falling within the purview of the fourth respondent herein and regularize the petitioner services with effect from 01.12.1999 with arrears of salary from 01.12.1999 including the difference of pay from 02.06.2004 according to the applicable scale of pay inclusive of all increments and attendant benefits.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to sanction and approve the post of Physical Education Teacher in L.M.S. Girls Higher Secondary School, Marthandam under the control of the fourth respondent and to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.12.1999 including the difference of pay from 02.06.2004.2. The writ petition was admitte...
iyyankutty Vs. Vasanthakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2010 made in A.S.No.50 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.02.1993 passed in O.S.No.271 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.ORDER1. The plaintiff was successful before the trial Court and lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant.2. The appellant/ plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.271 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, against the respondent/defendant praying for a judgment and decree to declare that in respect of the suit property measuring 3/th cents in resurvey No.295/6 at Thumbacode Village, Kanyakumari District, he is the owner of the said property and for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to remove the offending construction put up on the said property. It is averred by the appellant/plaintiff that the plaint schedu...
K.JudIn Vs. the District Elementary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
PRAYERWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the recores relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1978/B1/2011 dated 06.07.2011 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and further directing the respondents 1 and 2 to disturb the petitioner's salary.ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as B.T.Assistant in History in the third respondent school on 05.06.2008 in the vacancy caused due to the dismissal of one Mr.Alagesan. The said Mr.Alagesan filed W.P.(MD) No.5698 of 2008, questioning the order dismissing him from service and the writ petition is still pending.2. Even if Mr.Alagesan continued in service, he could have retired on 31.05.2010, on attaining the age of superannuation. Considering the said fact, the first respondent passed an order dated 01.04.2011, approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2010. The petitioner could be entitled to approval from th...
Jeyapriya Vs. State, Rep by
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
PRAYERWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in her proceedings Na.Ka.No.7682/A4/2011, dated 07.03.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to investigate the petitioner's complaint dated 18.08.2011 and pass orders.ORDER1. Heard Mr.E.Somasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.T.K.Gopalan, learned counsel, who takes notice on behalf of respondents 3 to 8. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.2. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 07.03.2012 and for a direction to the first respondent to investigate the complaint of the peti...
K.Sathyavathi. Vs. the Superintendent, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents their men or whomsover acting their on behalf from bringing petitioners husband M. Krishnan who detained under Black Market Act confined in Central Jail Coimbatore with handcuffs and chain as and when he has to be produced before the Magistrate Courts or to be produced before the Advisory Board, High Court, Madras.O R D E R1. The petitioner is the wife of one M.Krishnan. He has been detained by the Executive Magistrate cum District Collector by an order dated 3.5.2012 under the Central Act 7 of 1980 under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act. The authority found that the petitioner's husband is a black-marketer and liable to be detained in the Central Prison, Coimbatore. The detention order dated 3.5.2012 is not under challenge in this Writ Petition. On the contrary, the petitioner/wife contends that as and...
The Management of Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation. Vs. the Presi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Award made in I.D.No.2 of 2004 dated 21.11.2006 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner is the State owned Corporation, having their Divisional Office at Salem. In this writ petition, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the Award passed by the 1st respondent/Labour Court in I.D.No.2 of 2004 dated 21.11.2006. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent/workman with backwages and other attendant benefits together with the suit cost of Rs.250/-.2. The writ petition was admitted on 18.08.2008. Pending the writ petition, an order of interim stay was granted for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, the Management filed MP.No.2 of 2008 for vacating the interim order. However, no orders have been passed till date. The Workman filed M.P.No.3 of 2008 for payment of las...
H.T.L.Limited (Formerly Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd) Vs. the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 3rd respondent and quash attachment dated 10.3.2007 of attaching the properties in Survey No.SF No.25/Part, 28/Part, 29/Part, 27/Part, 30/1 Part, 30/2 Part, 31/Part, 32/Part & 34 /Part in Alandur village, Guindy Industrial estate belonging to the petitioner.O R D E R1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that this Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. He had also submitted a letter, dated 12.6.2012, before the High Court Registry.2. In view of the same, the writ petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, as withdrawn. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed....
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »