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.
JaibunnisA. Vs. P.M.Thahira Begum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Civil revision petitions preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal orders dated 24.02.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Gudiyatham, Vellore District in unnumbered E.A.Nil/2012 in E.A.No.223 of 2007 in E.P.No.445 of 2004 in RCOP No.6 of 2002.COMMON ORDER1. These civil revision petitions are focussed as against the fair and decreetal orders dated 24.02.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Gudiyatham, Vellore District in unnumbered E.A.Nil/2012 in E.A.No.223 of 2007 in E.P.No.445 of 2004 in RCOP No.6 of 2002.2. Heard both sides.3. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions can be encapsulated thus:a) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the heart burns of his client in the following words:The revision petitioner herein filed these two revisions challenging and impugning the legality of the order passed in th...
E.Selvaraj. Vs. the Commissioner 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 Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in plots Nos.I, II, III, IV & V at Gajalakshmi Nagar Extn., Nolambur Village, Ambathur Taluk, Chennai-600 005 except due process of law.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in plots Nos.I, II, III, IV & V at Gajalakshmi Nagar Extn., Nolambur Village, Ambathur Taluk, Chennai-600 005 except due process of law.2. Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioners' apprehension is that the respondents are trying to interfere with the petitioners' property as above. In the typedset of papers, this court finds no ...
M/S. Deccan Printers Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Ashok Jindal Vide Stay Order No. 401/2012 dated 4.6.2012, the appellant was directed to make a predeposit of the entire amount of tax within four weeks and compliance was to be reported today i.e. 23.7.2012. 2. When the matter was called for today, none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor any compliance report is available on record. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994....
Minor V.Harshan. Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner under OBC Non Creamy Layer Category for the selection of candidates under IIT JEE-2012 on the production of the Certificate and declaration as provided under in IIT JEE-2012 Brochure.ORDER1. The petitioner, who is a meritorious student, has appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination 2012, conducted by the second respondent for the academic year 2012-2013. According to him, he belongs to Other Backward Class (OBC) Category falling under Non Creamy Layer Category. According to him, 27% of the seats were reserved for each course against OBC's Non Creamy Layer Candidates. According to him, on a misinformation provided by his father, the petitioner thought that he fell within the category of OBC Creamy Layer. Hence, he has applied under GE Category (open competition), vide application No.C16127692. The application of the petitione...
Dr. Razia Rep. by Power Agent Dharbar Ali. Vs. Kathija Bi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order of the Principal District Munsif Court at Ulundurpet dated 21.07.2011 made in I.A. No: 1863 of 2010 in O.S. No: 387 of 2007.O R D E R1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging an order of the learned Principal District Munsif at Ulundurpet dated 21.07.2011 made in I.A. No: 1863 of 2010 in O.S. No: 387 of 2007.2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court . The suit is one for a judgment and decree of declaration and for a permanent injunction. Earlier, the revision petitioner has moved an application in I.A. No: 854 of 2008 in the very same suit for appointment of an advocate commissioner which was dismissed by the trial Court. As against such dismissal, the revision petitioner preferred a revision in C.R.P. No: 341 of 2009. This Court, by an order dated 21.07.2009, allowed the said revision by setting aside the order dated 22.12.2009 m...
J.Jesubalan. Vs. P.S.K.Finance and Chit Funds Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Civil revision petition filed against the order dated 6.1.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Salem, in I.A.No.127 of 2011 in I.A.No.312 of 2010 in O.S.No.78 of 2007.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 6.1.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Salem, in I.A.No.127 of 2011 in I.A.No.312 of 2010 in O.S.No.78 of 2007, this civil revision petition is filed.2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:(i) The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.78 of 2007 for recovery of money. After filing of the written statement, when the matter came up for trial, the defendant remained ex-parte; whereupon ex-parte decree was passed.(ii) Subsequently, the defendant filed the application I.A.No.312 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay of 903 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to get the ex-parte de...
Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ms.Vasan Publications Limited Chennai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Chennai, dated 7.10.2005 passed in I.T.A.No.432/ Mds/ 2001 for the assessment year 1997-98.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The Revenue has preferred the appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment year 1997-98. The above Tax Case (Appeal) was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-"Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the expenditure incurred on foreign travel and medical treatment of the Managing Director and his wife is allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act?"2. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of Rs.10,59,363/- being the expenditure stated to have been incurred by the company to meet the medical and travelling expenses of the Managing Director and his wife for his treatment in U.S.A. The Assessing Officer pointed out that there was no ...
R.Aruchamy. Vs. the Deputy Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to grant approval on the lay-out plan submitted by the petitioner on 6.5.2012 and 5.6.2012 or forward the same to the first respondent for passing appropriate order of approval by disposing the petitioner's representation dated 6.5.2012 and 5.6.2012.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to grant approval on the lay-out plan submitted by the petitioner on 6.5.2012 and 5.6.2012 or forward the same to the first respondent for passing appropriate order of approval by disposing the petitioner's representation dated 6.5.2012 and 5.6.2012.2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner has filed an application to the second respondent for grant of approval to the layout...
L. Fathima FabiolA. Vs. the Registrar General.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Prayer:This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to evaluate the petitioner's answer to question No.4 with reference to question No.4 only and not with reference to question No.3, which was not answered at all and award her marks to question No.4 in Law Paper-II of Civil Judge (Junior Division) as per the notification dated 21.1.2012 and consequently direct the respondent to call her for viva-voce.O R D E RN. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to evaluate the petitioner's answer with reference to question No.4 only and not with reference to question No.3, which was not answered at all and award marks to question No.4 in Law Paper-II and consequently direct the respondent to call her for viva-voce.2.The petitioner, who was one of the candidate applied for Civil Judge (Junior Division) post in terms of the ...
The Director of School Education and ors. Vs. Uma Maheswara Higher Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Prayer Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 22.12.2008 made in W.P.(MD) No.8896 of 2008 on the file of this Court.JUDGMENTR.BANUMATHI,J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2009 in W.P.(MD)No.11554 of 2008 quashing the Proceedings of the 3rd Appellant in A.Thi.Mu.No.768/A1/2008 dated Nil.06.2008 and directing the Appellants to approve the appointment of 2nd Respondent - T.Govindaraj as Watchman of the 1st Respondent School with effect from 16.3.2002 and pay all monetary benefits, the Appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. Case of Respondents is that 2nd Respondent - T.Govindaraj was appointed on 16.3.2002 as Watchman in the 1st Respondent School in a sanctioned vacancy. 1st Respondent sent a proposal to the 3rd Appellant - District Educational O...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »