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.indumathi. Vs. the Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent based on the complaint dated 27.10.2010 sent by the petitioner and to direct the 4th respondent to return the original certificates such as 10th and +2 mark sheets, transfer certificate, community certificate, residential certificate and income certificate to the petitioner.O R D E R1. The petitioner, after completing schooling, joined S.V.S.Medical College of Yoga & Naturopathy and Research Institute on 06.07.2009 to pursue five and half year B.N.Y.S.Medical Degree Course. The 4th respondent is affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University / 3rd respondent.2. At the time of admission, an impression was given to the petitioner, that the course offered by the 4th respondent consists of useful curriculum and that the courses offered by them are job-oriented. It was ...
V.Balakrishnan Vs. R.Sai Kumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Petition filed under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and decree dated 22.07.2010 made in RCA.No.590 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order and decreetal order dated 03.12.2009 made in E.A.No.135 of 2009 in E.P.No.225 of 2009 in RCOP.No.788 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai.O R D E R1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.590 of 2009 dated 22.07.2010 in confirming the order and decreetal order passed by the Executing Court made in E.A.No.135 of 2009 in E.P.No.225 of 2009 in RCOP.No.788 of 2006 dated 03.12.2009.2. The Revision Petitioner was the respondent / third party before the Executing Court and the respondent was the petitioner / landlady.3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner / landlady before the lower court would be as follows:-The petitioner is the owner of the proper...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Chennai. Vs. N. Thanu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Tax Case (Appeals) against the Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench dated 29.11.2004 in ITA No.70/(Mds)/96 (Mds)/2003 for the Assessment Year 1992-93.JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.,)1. The Revenue has filed the appeal against the Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench dated 29.11.2004 in ITA No.70/(Mds)/96 (Mds)/2003 for the Assessment Year 1992-93. The following substantial questions of law are raised in the Tax Case (Appeal) preferred by the revenue:i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts actually received as fees by the assessee from students should not be treated as its asset on the ground that he is accounting for the fees spread over the duration of the course? andii) Whether the concept of accrual of income will have a bearing on wealth tax assessments, when the assessee has already received and is in possession of the amounts?2. It is seen from the narration of facts...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. G.Susai Raj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decretal order dated 30.11.2006 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.27 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Poonamallee.JUDGMENT1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, in this appeal, disputes its liability to pay compensation to the first respondent.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, at the time of accident, the driver of the second respondent was not possessing a valid driving licence. For such violation, he has also been charge-sheeted before the Magistrate's Court. So, it is a case of not possessing driving licence. Even if the driver is having expired driving licence, he would be construed as not having a driving licence. There is policy violation. So, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the first respondent on account of the second respondent.3. On the other hand, the learned couns...
Lakshmi and ors. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with and peaceful possession of the land in S.Nos.657/3A3 and 657/3AK in Mettukuppam, VPG Avenue Extension, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District and direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to repair the damaged houses in the above said land in S.Nos.657/3A3 to 657/3AK in Mettukuppam VPG Avenue Extension, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram.O R D E R1. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had submitted that the lands, in respect of which the present writ petition has been filed, are forest lands and therefore, the petitioners would have to make their claims, if any, before the Forest Settlement Officer, notified under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1982, and it is for the authority concerned to consider their claims and pass appropriate ...
Ramesh Babu Vs. K.Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.3.2003 in O.S.No.230 of 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge (In-charge) Mayiladuthurai.JUDGMENT1. This appeal suit has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7.3.2003 in O.S.No.230 of 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge (In-charge) Mayiladuthurai.2. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.230 of 2000. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of amount based on a pronote, said to have been executed by the appellant for Rs.9,00,000/- on 21.12.1997 agreeing to repay the same at 18% p.a. in favour of the plaintiff through a common friend, namely, Sivaji. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that after borrowing the amount, the appellant has failed to repay the same and even the respondent was unable to find the appellant for insisting the loan amount since he was absconding. In such circumstances, the respondent has filed the above said suit.3. The said suit was cont...
R.Prabhu. Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in Letter No.3855/179/MEPO/South/NeMe/3/U3/KO.VaVe/03 dated 21.03.2003 on the file of the third respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner herein in the respondent Board in any one of the post commensurate with his educational qualification on compassionate ground.O R D E R1. The petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in calling for the records in Letter No.3855/179/MEPO/South/NeMe/3/U3/KO.VaVe/03 dated 21.03.2003 on the file of the third respondent and to quash the same. Further, the petitioner has sought for an issuance of a direction to the respondents in appointing him in anyone of the post commensurate with his educational qualification on compassionate ground.2. The petitioner's father namely,...
M.Senthilkumar. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
JUDGMENT(made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.) INTRODUCTORY :-1. The failure on the part of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to give weightage to preferential qualification in accordance with the Selection Notification, on account of securing equal marks by four candidates and the ultimate selection of respondents 4 and 5, two among four such candidates, solely on the ground of their seniority in age, made the petitioner to challenge the selection, and the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge on the basis of an incorrect statement made by the Commission that extra marks were given for preferential qualification compelled him to file this intra-court appeal.BACKGROUND FACTS :-2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [hereinafter referred to as 'the Public Service Commission'] issued a notification dated 18 April 2007 calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade II. As per the notification, selectio...
Ss 1505 Mohanur Co-operative Vs. the District Consumer Disputes and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Prayer :Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the impugned proceedings and orders passed by the 1st respondent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C.C.Nos.16 of 2009, 14 of 2009 and 15 of 2009 respectively dated 28.3.2011 and the consequential actions and the proceedings in E.A.Nos.17 of 2012 in C.C.No.16 of 2009, 15 of 2012 in C.C.No.14 of 2009 and 16 of 2012 in C.C.No.15 of 2009 respectively dated 19.4.2012 and quash the same as null and void and pass such further or other orders.O R D E R1. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are the Cooperative Society. In these Writ Petitions, the challenge is to the order in pending proceedings before the District Consumer Redressal Forum.2. It is not clear as to how such a Writ Petition is maintainable. Under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, they have three-tier appeal mechanism, namely from the District Forum to the Sta...
M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Cst, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. 1. Heard both sides. In this case, the Adjudicating Commissioner has confirmed a demand of Rs.1,34,03,427/- along with appropriate interest and has also imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The dispute in these two appeals relate to the adjustments made by the appellants under Rule 6 (3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, for two periods. The said Rule 6(3) reads as under:- 1. Where an assessee has paid to the credit of Central Government service tax in respect of a taxable service, which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him (calculated on a pro rata basis) against his service tax liability for the subsequent period, if the assessee has refunded the value of taxable service and the service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received. The above quoted Rule allows an assessee to adjust excess service tax paid by him if...