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.Ramadoss Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to point out field and mark the boundary line of the petitioners' property situated in Sundarasholavaram Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District, comprised in Paimash Nos. 64, 65, 66 and 67 in Survey No.12/6, registered as Document No.3293 of 1972 at SRO Poonamallee, measuring an extent of 5.65 acres in the presence of the third respondent pursuant to the petitioners' application dated 23.02.2010 and 12.08.2010.O R D E R1. The petitioners have approached this Court, with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other writ or direction for directing the first Respondent to point out field and mark the boundary of the petitioners' property situated in Sundarasholavaram Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District, comprised in Paimash Nos. 64, 65, 66 and 67 in Survey No.12/6, registered as Document No.3293 of 1972 at...
S.P. Narayananan Vs. the Commissioner Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Produ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
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 of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Ref.No.1208/Estt.1/2007 dated 30.6.2007 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner his retirement benefits.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 30.6.2007, relieving the petitioner from service, from 30.6.2007. However, the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, on his retirement, had been ordered to be withheld pending settlement of the audit objections raised by the Audit Review Committee.3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner had not submitted his explanation to the audit objections raised by the Audit...
The Secretary to Government and ors. Vs. N. Renugadevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Prayer : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 9.11.2011 made in W.P. No.2994 of 2011.J U D G M E N T( The Honourable the Chief Justice & T.S. Sivagnanam )1. The State has come up with this appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.2994 of 2011, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein to consider her application for appointment on compassionate grounds.2. The husband of the respondent/writ petitioner, who was working as a Seaman, died in harness on 5.3.1990. She filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 12.11.1990 and again on 5.6.1991. By proceedings dated 13.9.1996, she was asked to produce relevant documents for being considered for appointment to the post of Sweeper on compassionate grounds. However, this time, the respondent made a request for appointment of her son, who was studying in IX Standar...
M.Ranganatha Pillai and ors. Vs. Anandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 26.10.2005, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District, in A.S. No.24 of 2005, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 09.04.2003, passed in O.S.No.47 of 1998, by the Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar.J U D G M E N T1. The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff as against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District, in A.S.No.24 of 2005, dated 26.10.2005, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar, in O.S.No.47 of 1998, dated 09.04.2003.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:-The plaintiff/appellants herein filed a suit in O.S.No.47 of 1998 seeking for a declaration of his title with respect of 'A' Schedule property and also for recovery of possession with regard to 'B' Schedule property, which is a channel to an extent of 3 ft. breath X 200 ft....
G.Pavendhan. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
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 second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5.6.2012 and to permit the petitioner to hold procession and demonstration fixed on 13.6.2012 from Mantro Statue near Island Ground, Chennai to the Government Guest House, Chepauk, Chennai.ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate and claiming to be the Organizer for the campaign against the murder of Satish Kumar, S/o.R.Sankarasubbu, an Advocate in Chennai. In this writ petition, they have sought for a direction to consider their representation dated 5.6.2012 given to the second respondent Commissioner of Police.2. By the representation dated 5.6.2012, the petitioner's campaign group wanted to conduct a protest rally on 13.6.2012 at 11.00 A.M. starting from Mandro Statue and ending in the Chepauk State Guest House via Anna Salai, Walaja ...
A.Krishnan. Vs. the Joint Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st Respondent dated 04.10.2011 in R.P.2/2011 A1 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for the issuance of writ of Certiorari, to quash the order of the 1st Respondent dated 04.10.2011 in R.P.2/2011 A1.2. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that Arulmigu Koneri Perumal Temple situated in S.No.348/10, Pallakanur Kattu Valivu, Soorapallai Village was established by the forefathers of the petitioner 200 years back.3. The forefathers of the petitioner were managing the said Village Temple, and continued as hereditary trustee of the temple.4. A dispute arose between the father of the petitioner namely K.Arumugam and his brothers on the one hand and T.Ramasamy Pillai and Perumal Gounder on the other hand claiming hereditary trusteeship of the temple.5. The petitioner's father and his ...
N.Dhanapal Vs. the Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
PRAYER:This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 1975 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner on par with those who were promoted based on their securing more than 50% marks obtained on the Range Promotion Board and also based on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.2176/91, etc. dt.7.8.1992 being a similarly situated person and promote the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police, Cat-II and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.O R D E R1. The petitioner was enlisted as a Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve, Trichy district on 10.11.1975. The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on 11.8.1986. On bifurcation of Perambalur district, the petitioner was transferred to that district in April 1986.2. According to the Service Rules governing service conditions, any approved probationer in the ca...
Dr.S.Sukumaran. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as lecturer in Botany in the fourth respondent-college with effect from 16.06.2008 with all monetary benefits, in the light of the order dated 18.01.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23539 of 2009.O R D E R1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer in Botany in the fourth respondent-college with effect from 16.06.2008 with all monetary benefits, in the light of the order made in W.P.No.23539 of 2009, dated 18.01.2010.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Botany in the fourth respondent aided minority college. The petitioner passed M.Sc., and M.Phil degrees with First Class. The petitioner also passed Doctor of Philosophy from Manonmaniam Sundarana...
M/S. Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Ex ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. We find that the issue involved in this case is as to whether service tax paid on CHA services in respect of export of goods can be allowed as credit or not. The issue stands decided by the Tribunal’s Final Order No. 1193 to 1209/2011 dated 28.10.2011 in the case of M/s. Amalgamations Repco Ltd. and 14 Ors. Vs. CCE, Madurai and Trichy. The gist of the said order is reproduced below for ready reference:- 3. As seen from above, there are some decisions which do not allow credit of service tax paid on CHA services holding that the services availed in the port area are not input services for the manufacture of goods. The departmental representatives appearing in different cases have placed reliance on these decisions which are mentioned above at Sl. No. (1) and (2) in paragraph 2 above, whereas reliance is placed by learned counsels appearing for the assessee-appellants/ respondents on other decisions listed above which allow...
Bharat Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Per D.N. Panda, J. 1. Appellant’s grievance is that in absence of undervaluation of import made, Customs authorities should not have disturbed the valuation declared by the appellant in the Bill of Entry. The goods imported was Patcholi oil in terms of Bill of Entry No.296204 dt. 11.10.2000. Appellant declared the import value as US$ 5.8 per kg. But the unit price was enhanced to US$ 19.25 per kg by the impugned order resulting in unreasonable duty difference of Rs.12,67,211/-. It was also the grievance of the appellant that levy of penalty was unwarranted and confiscation of goods was also uncalled for. However, option for redemption was allowed. Appellant’s plea for retesting of goods was not a...