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.
A.Duraisamy. Vs. the District Collector-cum Inspectors of Panchayat.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the respondents 2 and 1 pertaining to the impugned surcharge notice Na.Ka.No.849/2011/A4 dated 21.09.2011 and modified impugned final order Na.Ka.No.849/2011/A4 dated 2.3.2012 respectively and quash the same.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the respondents 2 and 1 pertaining to the impugned surcharge notice Na.Ka.No.849/2011/A4 dated 21.09.2011 and modified impugned final order Na.Ka.No.849/2011/A4 dated 2.3.2012 respectively and quash the same.2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in appeal by the first respondent Inspector of Panchayat-cum-District Collector modifying the order of the second respon...
Venkataraman. Vs. State by Inspector of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.A.No.49 of 2000 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Mailaduthurai in S.C.No.21 of 2000 convicting the petitioner to six months rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and set aside the same.ORDER1. The revision petitioner / appellant / accused has filed the present Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.489 of 2001 against the judgment made in C.A.No.49 of 2000, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.21 of 2000, on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Mailaduthurai.2. The short facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-The defacto complainant viz., M.Murugeswari (minor), who is studying in the IVth class at Gove...
K.Jothi KannA. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Computer Instructor in any one of the Government Higher Secondary Schools in Tamilnadu even by conducting a special examination by the third respondent, if necessary.O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner, as a computer instructor, in any one of the Government Higher Secondary schools in Tamilnadu by conducting a Special examination for the said purpose.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the third respondent had verified all the records relating to the educational qualifications of the petitioner and a verification certificate had also been issued by the fifth respondent, to the third respondent, on 26.9.2008. Therefore, the petitioner was under the bona fide i...
Dr.B.Prema Mahadevi. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 not to shift/realign the High Transmission power line running across the land Survey No.187/1B in Vanagaram Village in a manner that the power line will be shifted/realigned in the land of the 4th respondent so as to abut the petitioner's land on his boundary.O R D E R1. The petitioner had preferred the present writ petition to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to shift/realign the High Transmission power line running across the land in Survey No.187/1B, in Vanagaram Village, adversely affecting the interests of the petitioner.2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, it had been stated that he had requested the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to shift the High Tension Transmission power line running across his land, as it is hampering his proposed construction activities in his land. It had also been stated ...
Ms. K.G.Mills. Vs. R.Kulandaivelu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 28.07.2005, passed in Crl.A.No.362 of 2004, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore varying the punishment given in the judgment dated 13.07.2004, passed in C.C.No.380 of 2000, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-V, Coimbatore.ORDER1. The revision petitioner herein / complainant has preferred the criminal revision in Crl.R.C.No.1109 of 2006, against the judgment made in Crl.A.No.362 of 2004, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Coimbatore, modifying the judgment of sentence and fine passed in C.C.No.380 of 2000, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-V, Coimbatore and has prayed for enhancement of punishment and fine imposed on the accused.2. The complainant's case is as follows:-The accused 2 and 3 are partners in the first accused firm. The accused 2 and 3 have purchased cotton yarn from the co...
Ms. Premier Synthetic Industries. Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Tax Case Appeals against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D Bench, Chennai, dated 28.2.2005 passed in I.T.A.Nos.1570 and 1571/ Mds/95 respectively.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The assessee has preferred these appeals as against the order of the Tribunal relating to assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The above Tax Case (Appeals) are admitted on the following common substantial question of law:-"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the disallowance of loss incurred by the appellant arising from purchase and sale of shares?"2. The assessee herein is a partnership firm. The return originally filed by the assessee was accepted under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, while scrutinising the assessment for the assessment year 1988-89, it was found that the assessee had claimed short term capital loss on sale of shares for the assessment year 1987-88, which was identica...
A.Ravi. Vs. Corporation of Chennai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,11,197.36 being the cumulative sum for the civil works done by the petitioner in the year 2009 with interest and damages till the date of realization.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,11,197.36 being the cumulative sum for the civil works done by the petitioner in the year 2009 with interest and damages till the date of realization.2. Mrs.Karthika Asokan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner claims to be a licensed contractor and has executed several works for the Corporation of Chennai. During the year 2009, he undertook certain projects, like repairing canals, providing pathway at road margins, footpath storm water drain, construction and desilting ...
A.Sivakumar. Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the circular in COPR/P&A/465/2005 dated 30.11.2005 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as illegal, unreasonable, highly discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and to regularise the Petitioner's service in the Respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation from the date of joining in the NLC Health Promotion and Social Welfare Society and order all attendant service benefits including promotion, arrears of pay etc.O R D E R1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the circular COPR/P&A/465/2005 dated 30.11.2005 issued by the 2nd Respondent and to quash the same as illegal, unreasonable, highly discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the provisions of The Person...
Ramachandran Son of Varadharajan and ors. Vs. Rajendran Son of Muthusa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Sangagiri dated 18.9.2003 in A.S.No.47 of 2000 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Sangagiri dated 24.9.1999 in O.S.No.156 of 1994.J U D G M E N T1. The present appellants in this Second Appeal are defendants before the trial Court against whom the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for passing a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, in particular, from raising the crops and also for costs. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for by giving a finding that the plaintiff/respondent-Rajendran has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent was found in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on the basis of the evidence produced before the trial court an...
Aanji. Vs. State By, Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the judgment dated 23.06.2005 made in C.C.No.58 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.ORDER1. The revision petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision against the judgment dated 23.06.2005 made in C.C.No.58 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.2. The history of the case are as follows:-The defacto complainant one Mr.Aanji S/o. Chinnaraji Gounder had levelled a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Town Police Station, Vaniyambadi. On 01.12.2001, at around 3.00 p.m., one Mrs.Saraswathi wife of Shankar had used abusive and vulgar language towards the defacto complainant and the same was questioned by the defacto complainant. Therefore, the said Saraswathi induced her in-laws viz., Venkatesan, Muthu and Sekar stating that the defacto complainant had picked a quarrel with her....