Chennai Court July 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.
Sadhana JaIn and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellants have filed these appeals along with stay applications and applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Admittedly, in these matters appeals have been filed on 17.4.2006. The contention of the appellants is that they have not been served the Orders-in-Original. In these matters there are two Orders-in-Original which are under challenge before us namely Order-in-Original No. 200/98 dated 29.7.1998 and Order-in-Original No. 61/2002 dated 28.3.2002. The contention of the appellant is that they have not received these orders till 2006 when they have been served the orders only on 19.1.2006. Thereafter they have filed the appeals within three months from the date of receipt of the impugned orders. 2. The contention of the appellant has been strongly objected by the learned AR on behalf of the Revenue and submitted that both the orders were despatched to the appellants at the address given by them to the Department which is reproduced below:- M/s. D...
P. Venugopal Vs. M/S. R.R. Donnlley India Outsource Private Ltd., Rep. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. 1. The complainant as a petitioner filed this Revision Praying for set a side the order passed by the District Forum in CMP 466/2010 in C.C. 481/2008 dated 14.11.2011. in which the petitioner praying for rejection of the written version of the opposite party, since it was filed by one 3rd person in the capacity of company secretary, who is not the Managing Director of opposite party. 2. After hearing both sides, the District Forum dismissed the petition by observing that the petition was filed belatedly after filing written argument by the Respondent/opposite party. 3. Aggrieved by this impugned order, the petitioner filed the Revision on the ground that the opposite party filed the written version through the unauthorized 3rd party which cannot be accepted with the proceeding thereby the erroneous order of the District Forum to be set a side. 4. We have heard both sides contentions in this regard, and the Respondent/opposite party contended that only t...
Bala Alias Balasubramani. Vs. State Rep. by the Station House Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Prayer.:- Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 30.11.2005 made in S.C.No.38 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Pondicherry.J U D G M E N T1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2005, made in S.C.No.38 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Pondicherry, whereby, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC in terms of Section 235 (i) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.2. The respondent Police filed a charge sheet stating that on 29.06.2002 at about 16 hours at Big Market, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Pondicherry, due to wordy quarrel, the accused assaulted one Velu and pushed him down and caused head injury, which resulted in his death and thereby, committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder, an offence punishable under ...
T.VasanthA. Vs. Assistant Divisional Engineer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5.11.2011 on second respondent and E.B.Connection address at Arani Village, Ponneri Taluk, ThiruvallurDistrict.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 2. There is no appearance on behalf of the third respondent, in spite of Court notice having been served on him and his name having been printed in the cause list. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that the second respondent would give the electricity connection in the name of the petitioner in respect of the property in question, as per Rule 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, within a specified time. 4. In view of...
Ashley Alteams India Limited. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication of the second respondent dated 27.4.2012 bearing Letter No.SE/TEDC/AO/REV/RCS/A1/F.ACCD/D27/2012, quash the same and forebear the respondents from disconnecting the electricity connection to the petitioner's plant situated at Plot No.8, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Chellaperumbulimedu Village, Sozhavaram Post, Akkur Via, Cheyyar Taluk 631 701.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication of the second respondent dated 27.4.2012 bearing Letter No.SE/TEDC/AO/REV/RCS/A1/F.ACCD/D27/2012, quash the same and forebear the respondents from disconnecting the electricity connection to the petitioner's plant situated at Plot No.8, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Chellaperumbulimedu Village, Sozhavaram Post, Akkur Via, Cheyyar Taluk 631 70...
Kanaga Alias Kanagambaram. Vs. Ethiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Civil revision petitions preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal orders dated 13.09.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in I.A.Nos.281 of 2011 and 46 of 2011 in A.S.No.107 of 2009.COMMON ORDER1. These civil revision petitions are focussed as against the fair and decreetal orders dated 13.09.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in I.A.Nos.281 of 2011 and 46 of 2011 in A.S.No.107 of 2009.2. Heard both sides.3. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions would run thus:a) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs would echo the cri de coeur of his clients to the effect that the appeal filed by the revision petitioners was dismissed for default; whereupon they filed an application I.A.No.281 of 2011 for restoring the appeal in time; that was returned to comply with te...
The Government of Tamil Nadu. Vs. Ms. Mecca Prime Tannery and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
J U D G M E N T1. The Hon ble the Chief JusticeSince, in all these writ appeals, which are 27 in number, a common question of interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 has to be answered, they have been heard together and answered by this common judgment. All these appeals arose out of separate judgements delivered by learned single Judges in various writ petitions filed by aggrieved land owners. Almost all the writ petitions have been allowed mainly on the ground that physical possession of the lands continued with the land owners or the persons claiming through them. The factual details of each case have been discussed in the latter part of this judgment.2. The State, which is the appellant in all but three appeals, has assailed the impugned judgments rendered by the writ courts as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. S. Gomathinay...
The Superintending Engineer. Vs. Salomi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 19.12.2005 made in A.S. No.24 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, modifying the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2004 passed by the Sub Court, Tiruppattur, in O.S. No.283 of 2003.J U D G M E N T1. The first respondent herein is the wife of one Thiru.Susainathan (deceased), R2 to R5 are their children and R-6 is the father of the deceased. As plaintiffs, they filed a suit in O.S. No.283 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Tirupathur, seeking to pass a decree against the defendant/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to them for the death of the family head-Susainathan, by pleading that late Susainathan was maintaining the family by earning about Rs.5,000/- per month from his betal leaves business; that on 20.09.2002 at about 5 AM., while proceeding in his bicycle via Sathampakkam-Nariyampattu Road, the deceased came into contact with a snapped live electric wire and due to electrocution...
P.G.Thomas. Vs. K.Suseela Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Civil revision petition filed against the judgement and decree dated 22.11.2010 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCA No.1183 of 2004 confirming the order dated 17.9.2004 passed by the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in RCOP No.1329 of 2002.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 22.11.2010 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCA No.1183 of 2004 confirming the order dated 17.9.2004 passed by the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in RCOP No.1329 of 2002, this civil revision petition is filed.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:(i) The respondent herein filed the RCOP No.1329 of 2002 for eviction, invoking Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buil...
Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Priya Dyes and Chemicals and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Appeal suits preferred under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.2005 made in O.S.No.836 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai.COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.NAGAPPAN, J.)1. The appeal in A.S.No.948/2005 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.2005, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai, in O.S.No.836 of 1998 on his file. The sixth defendant is the appellant.2. The appeal in A.S.No.104/2012 is preferred by the fourth defendant in the said case against the very same judgment and decree.3. Since both the appeals arose against the same judgment and decree, they are heard together and a common judgment is rendered.4. The first respondent herein filed the suit seeking for a judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.7,21,607/- together with future inter...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »