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.
Chinnasamy. Vs. Subramanian.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the Principal District Court, Salem, in I.A.No.119 of 2010 in un-numbered A.S.No.......ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the Principal District Court, Salem, in I.A.No.119 of 2010 in the un-numbered A.S, this civil revision petition is filed.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, in a few broad strokes, can be encapsulated thus:The suit O.S.No.117 of 2002 was filed by the respondent herein/Subramanian seeking the following reliefs:"to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants for specific performancea) to direct the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and receive the balance the sale amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff and deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.b) In case the defendants fail to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within...
Gangotri Textiles Limited. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd Respondent in his Notice No.A/ cs.Br/ HT/ A4/ F.HT SC.No.272/ D.413-1/ 2012, dated 07.06.2012, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and against the order of the first Respondent made in T.A.No.1 to 9 of 2011 dated 28.12.2011.O R D E R1. Heard Mr.ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.2. The petitioner is a dying unit having continuous process and is availing the optimum demand concept from 22.11.2008 and is enjoying such benefit based on Clause (n) of Memo No.CE/Comml/EE/DSM/F.Powercut/D.001/2008, dated 01.11.2008, issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board imposing electricity restriction and control measures by way of power cut for HT industrial, Commercial services and others fa...
Rajendran. Vs. R.Subramani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment acquitting the accused made in C.C.No.337 of 2004 dated 17.11.2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.JUDGMENT1. The allegations contained in the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are as follows -1[a] In the month of December 2003, the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs for his family expenses and undertook to repay the said sum with interest. To discharge his liability, he issued a cheque bearing No.947929 dated 25.5.2004 for Rs.2 lakhs drawn on Syndicate Bank, Nanganallur Branch as part of payment.1[b] As per the advise of the accused, the complainant deposited the cheque in his bank viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Meenambakkam Branch, Chennai on 25.5.2004 for collection. But the same was returned dishounoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient" by means of a memo dated 27.5.2004 and the same ...
Ms.The United Nilagiri Tea Estates Co. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The following is the substantial question of law raised in this Tax Case Appeal filed by the assessee, relating to the assessment year 1998-99:"Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income has to be taxed on accrual basis under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, though the same has become irrecoverable? "2. It is seen from the facts herein that the assessee advanced loan of Rs.25 lakhs to Credential Finance on 11.5.1995. We may immediately point out herein that the borrower is not a sister concern, though it has been said so in the Tribunal's order. The assessment order nowhere states this concern as the sister concern. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee/appellant herein also pointed out that the borrower was not a sister concern. It is seen that the company received interest at 24.5% till 16.8.1996. After that, the assessee had not received any interest and it made necessary ...
M.Gandhi and ors. Vs. Jayapriya Chit Funds Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Sub-Court, Neyveli, in E.P.No.66 of 2010 in A.R.No.459 of 2009.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Sub-Court, Neyveli, in E.P.No.66 of 2010 in A.R.No.459 of 2009, this civil revision petition is filed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, who would echo the cri de couer of his clients, namely, the petitioners five in number, to the effect that they stood as sureties for the principal debtor, namely, R2-R.Sivaji herein. The Executing Court simply ordered attachment of the salaries of the petitioners herein, which is against law. Without considering the objections raised by the sureties/judgement debtors, they are made to bear the brunt.3. Perused the records. Admittedly, the revision petitioners/judgement debtors 2 to 6 herein happened to be the sureties and undoubtedly they are also liable along with R2-R.Sivaji-the judgement debtor No.1.4. The lea...
M.Selvasekaran. Vs. R.Subramani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the District Munsif, Ponneri, in I.A.No.872 of 2009 in O.S.No.154 of 2000.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order 18.8.2010 passed by the District Munsif, Ponneri, in I.A.No.872 of 2009 in O.S.No.154 of 2000, this civil revision petition is filed.2. 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 revision petitioner herein filed the suit O.S.No.154 of 2000 seeking the following reliefs:"a) to grant a relief of declaration of the plaintiff's right and title of the suit property and also for consequential injunction thereby restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants and others authorised by him from trespassing into the suit property and in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.b) for the costs of the suit."(extrac...
Jane SathyA. Vs. Meenakshi Sundaram Engineering College
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to refund the fees paid by the petitioner to the first respondent at the time of admission.ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to abide by the orders of the second respondent i.e., Director of Technical Education, Chennai, dated 19.2.2008 and to refund the fees paid by her to the first respondent college at the time of admission.2. The writ petition was admitted on 12.12.2008. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner amended the prayer and sought for a direction to the first respondent college to refund the fees paid by her at the time of admission. That amendment was ordered on 26.11.2008. In the application for interim direction to refund the fees, this court merely ordered notice. On notice, from this court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, d...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.Nagamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
PRAYER:- Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2004 made in MCOP No.1366 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V), Coimbatore.J U D G M E N T1. As against the quantum of compensation awarded, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., appealed.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as per the version of the claimants, the salary of the deceased itself was Rs.5,000/- p.m., however, the Tribunal had adopted Rs.7,500/- p.m. The claim itself is Rs.5,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal had awarded more than that. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and also Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the first claimant. It amounts to double compensation.3. However, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that as per the latest Judgment of the Apex Court, loss of future prospects have also to be added, and if that is added, then the claimants are en...
M.SulochanA. Vs. M.Loganayaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Civil Revision Petition No.2219 of 2012 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 9.11.2011 in I.A.No.1030 of 2011 in I.A.No.879 of 2011 in O.S.No.174 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tambaram.Civil Revision Petition No.2220 of 2012 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 9.11.2011 in I.A.No.1031 of 2011 in I.A.No.878 of 2011 in O.S.No.174 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tambaram.ORDER1. These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order dated 9.11.2011 in I.A.No.1030 of 2011 in I.A.No.879 of 2011 in O.S.No.174 of 2011 and I.A.No.1031 of 2011 in I.A.No.878 of 2011 in O.S.No.174 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tambaram.2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent/first defendant is the mother of the revision petitioner. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration declaring that the construction of the building had been raised in ...
B.Rajmohan. Vs. C.Mohini Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 26.02.2010 made in E.P.No.2034 of 2008 in O.S.No.2644 of 2000 on the file of X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.O R D E R1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have made an endorsement in the Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision Petition that 'the Civil Revision Petition may be withdrawn as not pressed'.2. Recording the aforesaid fact, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Connected M.P. is closed. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- Next ›
- Last »