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.
R.Rajan Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to re-engage the petitioner as an Electrical Helper on daily wage basis.ORDER1. The Petitioner has projected this Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the fourth Respondent to re-engage him as an Electrical Helper on daily wage basis.2. According to the Petitioner, he joined as Electrician Helper on 06.10.1998 in the Public Works Department. He was working at Coimbatore Medical Hospital on daily wage basis. There were several workers in different branches of the second Respondent Office and they were engaged on daily wage basis to carry out the repair and maintenance of the buildings, maintained by the second Respondent.3. It is case of the Petitioner that he was deputed to work as Helper in the Electrical Division Coimbatore Medical Hospital. He was working sincerely without any complaint f...
T.H.Anees Ahamed Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 31.3.2011 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Krishnagiri, in I.A.No.86 of 2011 in O.S.No.272 of 2010.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 31.3.2011 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Krishnagiri, in I.A.No.86 of 2011 in O.S.No.272 of 2010, this revision petition petition has been filed.2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts would run thus:(i) The revision petitioner herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.272 of 2010, whereupon the second defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement and also filed the I.A.No.86 of 2011 for getting the plaint rejected.(ii) After hearing both sides, the lower Court rejected the plaint, as against which, this revision has been focussed.3. This Court raised the query as to how the revision would lie when appeal remedy is available.4. In this connection I could get no plausible explanation from the revision petitioner's side.5. At this juncture, I would li...
The Management, State Express Transport Corporation Vs. the Joint Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the order dated 11.4.2006 in A.P.No.286 of 2004 passed by the first respondent herein Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai.ORDER1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner State Express Transport Corporation at Chennai. In this writ petition, the petitioner sought to challenge an order passed by the first respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai made in Approval Petition No.286 of 2004 dated 11.4.2006. By the impugned order, the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner management for the grant of approval of termination of the second respondent.2.The writ petition was admitted on 24.4.2008. Pending the writ petition, in the application for an interim injunction, only notice was ordered. On notice being served, the second respondent filed M.P.No.1 of 2010 seeking to vac...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tmt.Vijaya Wife of Late Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the award and decree dated 17.6.2004 made in MCOP.No.176 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Dharmapuri.J U D G M E N T1. The appellant/3rd respondent has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal as against the award and decree dated 17.6.2004 made in MCOP.No.176 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Dharmapuri.2. The respondents 1 to 4/petitioners have filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of one K.Ganesan in the motor accident. Case of the claimants is that on 12.12.1997, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in Hero Hondo motor bike bearing Regn.No.TAL 1501 driven by his friend Govindhan and on the way to Dharmapuri Town in Salem Dharmapuri main road just opposite to Sri Devi Lodge, the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN 28 0510 driven by the 5th respondent/1st respo...
Arpit Jhanwar. Vs. Kamlesh JaIn Rep.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and to quash all further proceedings in C.C.Nos.2633, 2634, 2635, 2639, 2638, 2636, 2637, 2640, 2628, 2629, 2630, 2631 and 2632 of 2011 pending on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.COMMON ORDER1. A Hindu Undivided Family" - (HUF) is an Association of Individuals ; so it is a company in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thus, every member of the HUF is vicariously liable for punishment for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act committed by the Kartha of the HUF. This is precisely the stand of the complainant, in these cases, which is seriously refuted by the accused. This question is the basis for the instant petitions.2. In all these cases, besides the fact that the petitioner and respondent are one and the same, since common grounds have been raised, these petitions have been heard together and they are disposed of by means of thi...
P.Chidambaram Vs. R.S.Raja Kannappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Rules R/W VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and Sections 81, 82, 86, 100(1), (b), (d)(ii), (iii), (iv) and 123 of the Representation of Peoples' Act, 1951 seeking to strike off the Election Petition, in particular the specific portions pointed out therein.O R D E R1. The Applicant / Returned Candidate, who is presently the Union Home Minister, on an Election Petition filed against him, has filed an application to reject the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and also to strike out certain pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. The present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is made for the second time, though on an earlier occasion, an application was filed under the said provision on different grounds.2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in the Election Petition, who is the first respondent in this application, will be referred to as the "Election Petitioner", while the applicant in this applic...
R.Paneerselvam, and anr. Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
This 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 register the Petitioner's documents for the purpose of alienation and sale deeds with reference to the Petitioner's lands situated at Namakkal Town, Kuttai Street Extension III in S.F.No.265/2, Ward B, Block 3, T.S.No.9/3 and at Ramapuram Pudur Chavadi Street Extension IV, S.F.No.264/2, Ward-B, Block-3 in T.S.No.11/2, within the limits of Namakkal Town.M.VENUGOPAL, J.ORDER1. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has made an endorsement in the case bundle to the effect that "Petitioners documents were already registered by the Respondents. Hence, nothing survives in the Writ Petition and it has become an infructuous one". The said endorsement is recorded by this Court.2.In view of the fact that the Writ Petition has become an infructuous one, the present Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs....
Michaelraj Vs. Ramamurthy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.04.2010 made in CMA No.40 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore reversing the I.A.No.107 of 2007 in O.S.No.146 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Judge Court, Panruti.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 27.04.2010 passed in CMA No.40 of 2008 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore reversing the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti in I.A.No.107 of 2007 in O.S.No.146 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. At the entertaining stage itself, I have decided to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. The facts as stood un-curtained in this matter could be encapsulated thus:The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovering a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- with subsequent interest and costs. Earlier the revision petitioner/defendant remained absent;...
S.Amudha Vs. the District Collector, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
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 respondents to demolish all construction put up on the plots reserved for parks in the Gandhi Gramam layout, Gandhi Nagar Post, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District as approved by the second respondent in its proceedings bearing reference No.45/2001 dated 2.3.2001 and to maintain the same as a park.ORDER1. The petitioner is the resident of Neyveli. In this writ petition, she sought for demolition of all constructions put up in the plots reserved for parks in the Gandhi Gramam Layour, Gandhi Nagar Post, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District as approved by the second respondent Director, Town and Country Planning, vide his proceedings dated 2.3.2001 and to maintain the same as a park.2. The writ petition was admitted on 16.3.2007. Pending the writ petition, an interim injunction was granted. Notwithstanding the notice being served, there was no counter affidav...
Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chenna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-07-2012
Per D.N. Panda, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order of adjudication dated 5.10.2007 levying service tax of Rs.1,70,22,436/- as well as education cess of Rs.3,40,449/- followed by interest and penalty under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1944 holding that appellant had availed storage and warehouse services and incurred liability under Finance Act, 1994, came in appeal before Tribunal against that order. 2. The facts in issue were that the appellant as a Floating Production Unit (FPU) was engaged in offshore for drawing crude oil from subsea wells in sea and processes and transfers the processed crude oil through a buoy into a vessel called Floating Storage and Offloading unit (FSO) through which the crude is further transported to fleets. Real process of crude oil occurs at the FPU. One foreign company called, M/s.Prosafe Production Services Private Ltd. (in short PROSAFE), Singapore was paid certain amount by the appellant for provision of operations personnel, maintenance, s...
- ‹ Prev
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- Next ›
- Last »