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.
R. Krishnamurthy. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Writ Petition filed under under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the action of the respondents in treating the period from 18.11.73 to 04.04.79 originally as eligible leave and later as leave on loss of pay and not counting the period from 05.09.67 to 31.8.68 as qualifying service for pension as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and consequently direct the first respondent to count the said period as duty and qualifying service for pension and to pay him monthly pension with effect from 01.01.88 with arrears and all consequential benefits together with interest.ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the Nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the respondents in declining the pension to the petitioner, on the ground of his not having completed ten years of service.2. The petitioner also challenged the action of the respondents in treating the period from 18.1...
Yusuf Allabuksh. Vs. Julakia Bee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the complaint in C.M.P.No.172/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi.O R D E R1. The petitioner is the first respondent in C.M.P.No.172 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi. The first respondent herein is the complainant and the second respondent herein is the second respondent before the lower Court as well.2. The first respondent has filed the said petition under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance, share in the household and other reliefs as provided in Section 18 of the said Act. Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner has come up with this criminal original petition.3. In this petition, the only ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain...
The Managing Director. Vs. P.Murugan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the award and decree dated 28.10.2005 made in MCOP.No.517 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Addl. Sub Court), Gobichettipalayam.J U D G M E N T1. The appellant/second respondent-Transport Corporation has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal as against the quantum of award, passsed on 28.10.2005, in MCOP.No.517 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Additional Sub Court), Gobichettipalayam.2. The first respondent/petitioner has filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in motor accident occurred on 14.5.2002. Briefly, the case of the first respondent/petitioner is that on 14.5.2002, at about 10.45 pm, while the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN 39 T 3497 on Tirupur to Avanashi main road from south to north on the extreme left side, adhering th...
P.Natarajan. Vs. S.Varadharaju Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Civil revision petitions preferred seeking a direction to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, to conduct enquiry on the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner/JD and the objections of the respondents/DH in REP Nos.6 and 7 of 2000 in C.C.Nos.1 & 2 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.COMMON ORDER1. The above civil revision petitions are filed to direct the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, to conduct enquiry on the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner/JD and the objections of the respondents/DH in REP Nos.6 and 7 of 2000 in C.C.Nos.1 & 2 of 1999.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de couer of his client, by inviting the attention of this Court to the memo of calculation filed by the revision petitioner/judgement debtor, which is available at page Nos.5 to 8, to the effect that the Executing Court, without conducting an enquiry relating to the discharge of the decreetal dues ...
Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. T.M.Abdul Rahaman and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 11.07.2005 in MP.45/Mds/04 in ITA.No.1797/Mds/96 (Assessment Year 1992-93).JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The following is the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue in this Tax Case Appeal, relating to the assessment year 1992-93:" When on the admitted position, namely, the amended provision of law (amendment was on 1.4.1992); and when the assessment is of the year 1992-93, the amendment brought about in under Section (baa) 80HHC(4A), should alone be applied to the case on hand, when there is an omission in referring to that amended provision of law in passing the assessment order, can such an omission treating it as an error/mistake, be brought before the Tribunal for correction under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act? "2. The question relates to the includability of the Fixed Deposit Receipts in the business profit for granting...
G.Karthigaichamy. Vs. the Regional Manager and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17.05.2012, made in W.P.(MD)No.6934 of 2012.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.BANUMATHI,J)1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order in W.P.(MD) No.6934 of 2012, whereby the Writ Court declined to quash the communication in DIS.CON.27, dated 07.05.2012 and further declining to direct the 1st Respondent to keep in abeyance the disciplinary proceedings pending Appellant's claim for de-nova enquiry.2. Appellant - Karthigaichamy was working as an Assistant in the 1st Respondent Bank. Charges have been framed against the Appellant and one V.Mathivanan (Appellant in W.A.(MD) No.369 of 2011), alleging that Appellant colluded with Mathivanan, Senior Assistant, Modagam Branch, and facilitated him to do fraudulent acts and thereby acted prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Bank.3. Appellant - Karthigaichamy filed W.P.(MD) No.9573 of 2010 seeking a direction to the 1st...
V.Asokan. Vs. A.Geetha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Civil revision petitions preferred seeking a direction to the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, to dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.2980 of 2008 and F.C.O.P.No.2650 of 2010, respectively, as expeditiously as possible.COMMON ORDER1. The above civil revision petitions are filed to direct the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, to dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.2980 of 2008 and F.C.O.P.No.2650 of 2010, respectively, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de couer of his client to the effect that the revision petitioner herein filed the H.M.O.P.No.2650 of 2008 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the H.M.O.P.No.2980 of 2008 for custody of his son. But still both the matters are pending without any progress. Hence, the learned counsel would pray for issuing suitable direction to the Family Court concerned.3. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Fa...
R.Ranganathan. Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Lr.No.3526/U Special/2001, 31.01.2001 and quash the same and direct the respondents to promote the applicant on par with Tr.Padmanaban (Now serving in the Dy. Secretary) and grant him all consequential service, monetary benefits.O R D E R1. The prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order Lr.No.3526/U Special/2001 dated 31.01.2001, with consequential relief of issuance of direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner at par with Thiru M.Padmanaban (Deputy Secretary) with all consequential benefits.2. The petitioner, for the reasons best known, has not impleaded Thiru M.Padmanabhan as party to this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service on 05.08.1974, and promoted as ...
B.Vijaya Chandra Kumar. Vs. the Estate Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in C.M.A.No.151 of 2008 confirming the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Assistant Estate Manager, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006 in C.19/97/2008/AEM(M)/10568.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in C.M.A.No.151 of 2008 in confirming the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Assistant Estate Manager, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006 in C.19/97/2008/AEM(M)/10568, this civil revision petition is filed.2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de couer of his client to the effect that even though the revision petitioner retired from the Government Service as early as in the year 2008, he was constrained to occupy the quarters concerned and pr...
Ms.Sapthagiri Finance and Investments. Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Chennai, dated 24.8.2005 passed in I.T.A.No. 260/ (Mds)/05 for the assessment year 2000-01.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The assessee has preferred the appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment year 2000-01. The above Tax Case (Appeal) was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gains has to be assessed in the hands of the firm even though the properties belonged to the partners and the same was transferred by the partners in their individual capacity?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that partners and firm are not distinct and as such the transfer made by the partners in their individual capacity is deemed to be the transfer made by...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »