Chennai Court June 2012 Judgments
D. Pradeep Kumar Rao Vs. D. Lathabai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2012 made in I.A. No: 2589 of 2009 in O.P. No: 1179 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai.O R D E R 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, in I.A. No: 2589 of 2009 in O.P. No: 1179 of 2009, granting interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition in addition to delivery expenses of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. With regard to payment of arrears of maintenance, four months time was granted.2. Revision petitioner is the husband who filed the F.C.O.P. No: 1179 of 2009 to declare that the marriage held on 31.10.2008 between him and the respondent as null and void. Pending the Original Petition, the respondent / wife filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No: 2589 o...
Tag this Judgment!S.Mohammed Saleem Vs. Ms.City Optical Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Prayer : Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the appellate Court in C.A.No.121 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Salem, dated 22.04.2008 was confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court, viz., the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Salem in C.C.No.1056 of 2004, dated 13.09.2006 to call for the records and revise the judgments of the lower Court. ORDER1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The respondent herein / complainant had initiated a case in C.C.No.1056 of 2004, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Salem against the revision petitioner herein / accused stating that the accused had introduced one Salim, who is the proprietor of "Star Marketing Consultants", Chennai, regarding a business deal towards the supply of Raybon Sun Glasses, 6000 in numbers; towards this business transaction, as part payment, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.8,10,000/- by way of demand draft to the said Sa...
Tag this Judgment!P.Jayapal Vs. the Presiding Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the concerned records from the 1st respondent Tribunal, quash the award passed by the 1st respondent Tribunal dated 21.09.2007 in I.D.No.584 of 2001 and consequently substitute the same by directing the 2nd respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner as a Scavenger with effect from the date when the petitioner completed 480 days of continuous service.O R D E R1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the award dated 21.09.2007 passed by the first respondent Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai (shortly "CGIT") in I.D.No.584 of 2001. By the impugned award, the CGIT held that the demand for regularisation of service of P.Jayapal was not justified and that he was not entitled for any relief. Aggrieved by the same, the workman filed the present writ petition.2. The writ petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Babi Alias Maheswari. Vs. K.Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the Principal Sub Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Gobichettipalayam, to number the petition in I.A.No....of 2010 (C.F.R.No.12418 of 2010) in I.A.No.853 of 2007 in MCOP No.251 of 2007.ORDER1. This civil revision petition is focussed, seeking direction to the Principal Sub Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) to number the petition in I.A.No......of 2010 (C.F.R.No.12418 of 2010) in I.A.No.853 of 2007 in MCOP No.251 of 2007.2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts in a few broad strokes, could be encapsulated thus:The petitioners filed MCOP claiming compensation as against three respondents; Owing to the fact that steps have not been taken in the MCOP, it was dismissed for default; whereupon I.A.No.853 of 2007 was filed to get the MCOP restored and it was presumably allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.250/- each, in favour of R2 and R3 alone. Even though cost ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K.Sivaraman Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 14.4.2008 filed against the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide 193/2004 dated 27.12.2004 within the time frame fixed by this Honourable Court.O R D E R1. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that a communication, dated 26.5.2008, had been issued by the office of the first respondent, stating that the appeal filed by the petitioner had been admitted. However, no order had been passed, by the first respondent, in the said appeal, till date. Therefore, the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal, dated 14.4.2008, filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 26.5.2004, within the time frame fixed by this Court.2. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.Priyadharshini Vs. the Secretary to the Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to revise the ranking list by giving additional one mark for experience in the year 2009-2010 and allow the petitioner to participate in the counselling for Post Graduation Degree / 5 year M.Ch for the year 2012-2013.O R D E R1. Heard both sides.2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the second respondent, namely the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, to give additional mark for the experience gained in the year 2009-2010 and allow her to participate in the counseling for Post Graduation Degree Course / 5 year M.Ch for the year 2012-2013.3. When the writ petition came up on 14.06.2012, this Court ordered notice on admission and directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents.4. Accordingly, when the matter came up on 19.06.2012, a written instruction was re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms.indus Ind Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
APPEALs under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the orders dated 27.07.2001, 31.5.2006 and 11.4.2008 made in I.T.A.Nos.2428(Mds)/1994, 2229 (Mds)/1995, I.T.A.No.733/Mds/2003 and I.T.A.No.564/Mds/2007 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1999-2000 and 2003-04.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant filed a memo dated 28.06.2012 stating that the respondent's name has been changed to M/s.Indus Ind Bank Ltd. Hence, he requests that the respondent's name may be changed to continue with the proceedings. Accordingly, the memo dated 28.06.2012 is recorded.2. The above Tax Case (Appeals) are admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:T.C.(A)Nos.169 and 170 of 2005:"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is justified i...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.S.Ramachandran, Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the Government Letter bearing No.21215/Ni-a1/2008-11 dated 3.8.2010 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for re-conveyance of acquired lands at Survey Nos.166/1A, 166/2A, 166/3A, 166/4, 166/1B, 166/2B, 166/3B of Gopalsamudaram Village, Ambasamudaram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the Government Letter bearing No.21215/Ni-a1/2008-11 dated 3.8.2010 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for re-conveyance of acquired lands at Survey Nos.166/1A, 166/2A, 166/3A, 166/4, 166/1B, 166/2B, 166/3B of Gopalsamudaram Village, Ambasamudaram Talu...
Tag this Judgment!M.Syril Bernad. Vs. the Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 28.04.2011, made in W.P.No.30733 of 2006.J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice Elipe Dharma Rao)1. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 28.04.2011, made in W.P.No.30733 of 2006, whereby the writ petition, which was filed by the appellant challenging the order, dated 01.06.2006, passed by the respondent thereby fixing his seniority based on the date of his joining duty, i.e., on 28th December, 1983, was dismissed.2. It is the case of the appellant that he entered service under the Respondent/University on 24.04.1981 on daily rate basis, as 'Temporary Clerk' and in similar fashion, the respondent has appointed 'Temporary Clerks' for the periods from 1978 to 1983 and thereafter, the said temporary appointments made in respect of 175 'Temporary Clerks' including the appellant were made permanent in the year 1983, re-designating the said post as 'Temporary Junio...
Tag this Judgment!Selvaraj Vs. Ekambaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2012
Civil revision petitions preferred against the orders dated 13.6.2008 passed by the District Munsif, Sholinghur, in I.A.No.307 of 2007 and I.A.No.6 of 2008 in O.S.No.69 of 2001 and O.S.No.34 of 2002, respectively.COMMON ORDER1. Animadverting upon the orders dated 13.6.2008 passed by the District Munsif, Sholinghur, in I.A.No.307 of 2007 and I.A.No.6 of 2008 in O.S.No.69 of 2001 and O.S.No.34 of 2002, respectively, these revision petitions have been filed.2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:Ekambaram-the respondent in both the revisions filed the suit O.S.No.69 of 2001 for declaration of his title over an immovable property and for injunction as against Selvaraj-the revision petitioner herein in both the revisions. Subsequently, O.S.No.34 of 2002 was filed by the said Selvaraj in the same Court as against Ekambaram for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession.(ii) It so happened that when O.S.No.69 of 2001 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »