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.
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R.Karunanithi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur.COMMON JUDGMENTM.SATHYANARAYANAN,J1. The appellant in C.M.A(MD)No.1511 of 2011 is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur and challenging the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured namely the claimant and the quantum of compensation, preferred C.M.A.(MD)No.1511 of 2011.2. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur, aggrieved by the lesser quantum of compensation awarded, preferred C.M.A(MD)No.28 of 2012.3. For the sake of convenience, the array of parties as referred to in M.C.O.P.No.70 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur, is adopted...
MenakA. Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity board Rules and Regulations on the basis of the representations of the petitioner to the respondents dated 18.11.2011 and till such conclusion of enquiry by the respondents 1 to 3 the 4th respondent may be restrained from disbursement of any commutation of pension and other terminal benefits due to the 4th respondent after following the due process of law.O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from disbursing retiral benefits to the respondent No.4 in view of the representation dated 18.11.2011 filed by the petitioner.2. The writ petition as framed is totally misconceived, as no direction can be issued to the respondents 1 to 3 directing them not to pay the retiral benefit...
C. Swaminathan. Vs. the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Writ Petition filed under under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner in the Head Master scale by taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.1381 dated 5.10.90 as well as the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.4499/91 etc dated 2.2.96 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to sanction the retirement benefits and pension in the Head Master scale.ORDER1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.1.1969 and was promoted as Head Master from 8.3.1969. The petitioner rendered 31 years of service and retired on 31.8.2000.2. It is submission of the petitioner that prior to 1.6.1988, there was no distinction between the post of Secondary Grade, Special Grade Assistants and primary school Headmasters. The posts were interchangeable. The post of Head Master only carries special pay from Rs.10/- to Rs.20/-. As per G.O.No.666 dated 27.6.89 the post of Headm...
Maxima Electronics. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with proceedings Ref.TIIC/SRB/SLM/FUHSR/2003-01 dated 15.10.2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2003 by strictly applying the conditions laid down under the one time settlement.O R D E R1. This writ petition came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 26.02.2012.2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent viz, Branch Manager, Salem of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., (for short TIIC) dated 15.10.2003 and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2003.3. The writ petition was admitted on ...
N.S.Karthikeyan. Vs. the Assistant Director of Agriculture
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
PRAYER:This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 2874 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order bearing Proc.No.E/7152/96, dated 13.05.2002 with consequential prayer to issue direction to the respondent to refund the amount if any, recovered from the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum.O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Proc.No.E/7152/96, dated 13.05.2002 ordering recovery of Rs.40,716/- (Rupees forty thousand seven hundred and sixteen only) from the petitioner in 41 monthly instalments with first instalment of Rs.760/- (Rupees seven hundred and sixty only) and balance 40 instalments of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) each.2. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that a sum of Rs.1,07,806/- (Rupees one lakhs seven thousand eight hundred and six only) was recoverable from the father ...
Britannia Industries Limited. Vs. Sulochana Cotton Spinning Mills Priv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
This civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.520 of 2012 in Appeal A.S.No.59 of 2012.ORDER1. This civil revision petition has been focussed as against the order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.520 of 2012 in Appeal A.S.No.59 of 2012.2. Heard both sides.3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:Challenging the order of rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the defendant/revision petitioner preferred appeal in A.S.No.59 of 2012, which is pending before the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The said court also ordered status quo.4. Being aggrieved by the said order, this revision is focussed.5. At the time of submitting the arguments, the learne...
Mr.A.G.Ravi. Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records, relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.793/2012/A3, dated 28.05.2012, and to quash the same.O R D E R 1. The Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order, dated 28.05.2012, passed by the first respondent, viz., the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.2. The petitioner claiming to be the Member of the second respondent/Bank has applied for a loan, in the year 2000 and made part payment. Subsequently, another loan was sanctioned in the year 2004 and in respect of that loan, only some amount has been paid and the substantial amount, remains unpaid, for which, proceedings have been initiated by the second respondent/Authority, for attachment and sale of the property.3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the first ...
Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ms. T.M.Abdul Azeez and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B' dated 03.10.2005 in I.T.A.No.1151/Mds/ 2005 relating to the assessment year 2001-2002.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The following are the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue in this Tax Case Appeal, relating to the Assessment Year 2001-02:(a) Whether the failure to advert to clause "B" of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act had vitiated the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal when it held that when disclosure is made voluntarily, there is no scope of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act?(b) Since Clause "B" of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act casts the initial burden on the assessee to prove the essential ingredients of that clause and when there is a failure on the part of the assessee to discharge that burden, has not...
icici Prudential Life Insurance. Vs. M.G.Balasubramaniyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the warrant of attachment dated 22.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur in E.A.No.6 of 2011 in C.C.No.47 of 2008 and the entire proceedings in E.A.No.6 of 2011.ORDER1. Inveighing the order the warrant of attachment dated 22.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur in E.A.No.6 of 2011 in C.C.No.47 of 2008 and the entire proceedings in E.A.No.6 of 2011, this civil revision petition is filed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de couer of his client that holes-boles attachment order was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur, so as to attach the properties of the revision petitioner, who was not at all added eo-nominee a party in C.C.No.47 of 2008, even though he was added eo-nominee a respondent in the E.A.No.6 of 2011. The revision petitioner also was not heard and thereby the District Forum violated the pri...
K.Thavasimani. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and quash the FIR in Crime No.400 of 2005 dated 15.10.2005 registered against the petitioner herein as accused No.2 under sections 409, 420 and 381 of IPC on the file of the 1st respondent police.ORDER1. The undaunted person who has been arrayed as second accused in Crime No.400 of 2005 pending on the file of the first respondent, filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the concerned First Information Report.2. The second respondent herein as defacto complainant has given the complaint in question and the same has been registered in Crime No.400 of 2005, wherein it has been specifically stated that an inspection has been conducted with regard to diesel and ultimately found that 12,000 litres of diesel has been missing. On 14.10.2005 the first accused by name Sahul Hameed has given a confession to the effect th...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »