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.
Raja Alias Kattu RajA. Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.02.2003, made in S.C.No.179 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2), Gobichettipalayam.J U D G M E N T1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.02.2003, made in S.C.No.179 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2), Gobichettipalayam, whereby the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment to undergo six months simple imprisonment and he was convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- in default in payment to undergo one month simple imprisonment.2. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections...
M/S. Vigil Security Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal along with an application for stay against the impugned order. The facts of the case are that the service tax demand has been confirmed against the appellant for short-payment of service tax on the basis of figures shown in the balance sheet of the appellants. Therefore, show-cause notice was issued for short-payment of service tax and the same was adjudicated and converted into the impugned demand. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are having two offices apart from the office in question i.e. at Bangalore and Hosur. Both of these two offices are registered with the Service Tax Department and they are paying service tax on the services rendered by them. The balance sheet figure is a composite of the three units. Therefore, if the service tax payments made by those units are to be clubbed together then there may be a difference of Rs.18 lakhs short-payment of the service tax which they have already paid. As th...
indo Swiss Nutraceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2012
Ashok Jindal Vide Stay Order No.342/12 dt. 8.5.2012, this Tribunal directed the appellant to make predeposit of the entire amount in question within 6 weeks and compliance was to be reported on today. 2. When the matter was called today for compliance, none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any compliance has been made by the appellant. We find that no request for adjournment is also made by the appellant. In view of these, appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944....
Chennai Steel Yard Trailors Owners Association, Vs. the Chennai Metrop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from allowing any third party to collect the Entry fee for the vehicles entering into the Iron and Steel Market at Sathangadu, Chennai-103 on quotation basis for the short period.R.SUDHAKAR, J.ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from allowing any third party to collect the Entry fee for the vehicles entering into the Iron and Steel Market at Sathangadu, Chennai-103 on quotation basis for the short period.2. Mr.P.Tamilmani, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. Mr.Ravichandran, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Though the writ petition has been filed for a mandamus as above, after arguments, learned counsel r...
J.Denis Winston. Vs. the Academic Officer, the Tamil Nadu Dr.Mgr Medic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned condition NON STIPENDIARY alone in Order No. Rc.No.ACI(1)/60556/2011 dated 23.01.2012 by the 1st Respondent and quash the condition NON STIPENDIARY alone and direct the respondents to pay stipend at the rate of Rs.7600/- per month to the petitioner every month with effect from the date on which the petitioner is undergoing CRRI training in Stanley Medical College Chennai i.e., from 15.02.2012 till the completion of CRRI training on par with the interns of Stanley Medical College Chennai.VINOD K.SHARMA, J.ORDER1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned condition "non-stipendary" in Order No. Rc.No.ACI(1)/60556/2011 dated 23.01.2012, passed by the 1st respondent with consequential relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing ...
K.S.Jeyanthinathan. Vs. the District Collector, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents 2 to 4 to shift the place of laying pipes in connection with the implementation of underground sewerage Scheme from the centre point to the road side ends at Sannathi Street, Thiruchendur, Thoothukud District.ORDER(Order of the Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J)1. The Petitioner, who claims to be a Slathar attached to Arulmighu Subramaniya Thirukovil, Thiruchendur, has filed this Writ Petition, in public interest, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents 2 to 4 to shift the place of laying pipes in connection with the implementation of Underground Sewerage Scheme from the centre point of the cement road to the road side ends at Sannathi Street, Thiruchendur, Thoothukud District.2. According to the Petitioner, the 4th Respondent, by way of laying sewer pipes, has been digging the centre point of the cement road at Sannathi Street, Tiruchendu...
S.Chithravel, and ors. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to regularize the services of the petitioners 1 to 19 in the 3rd Respondent Municipality from 1999, the year of appointment.M.JAICHANDREN, J.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioners are working, as sweepers, in the third respondent Municipality. Their names have been sponsored, by the District Employment Exchange concerned. They had been appointed in the third respondent Municipality, as per the proceedings, dated 10.02.1999, 12.02.1999 and 25.03.1999, based on the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 05.05.1998, on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/-, per month. On their completion of three years of service, the third respondent had recommended the names of the ...
V.Saraswathy. Vs. S.Ganapathy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.06.2005 passed in A.S.No.176 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 06.06.2003 passed in O.S.No.2189 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.JUDGMENT1. The present Second Appeal has been directed against the soundness of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court.2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this second appeal are as follows:(i)The appellant herein is the defendant before the trial Court against whom, the suit was filed for permanent injunction to direct the defendant to remove all structures and construction already put up in the suit lane and for mandatory injunction to remove structures and construction in the suit lane through the officer of the Court; (b)for directing the defendant to restrain from proceeding any construction or structure o...
T.Palanisamy . Vs. the District Collector Salem District and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take consequential action by preparing necessary proposal on the basis of the Revaluation Report dated 17.6.2011 in Letter No.LA/2011/AE submitted by Divisional Engineer (NH) Salem-5 and forward the same to the first respondent for appropriate action.M.JAICHANDREN, J.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.2. It has been stated that the land in survey No.125/2F, belonging to the petitioner, in which a Kalyanamandapam, in the name of Venkateswara Thirumana Mandapam had been situated, was acquired for the widening of National Highways NH 68. The competent authority had also passed an Award. The petitioner had raised a dispute against the Award and had sought to settle the dispute, by way of arbitration, as provided under Section 3 G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The first respondent...
M.Shenbhaga Kani. Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2012
(5th and 6th are Partners in Balaji Tiffin Centre" carrying on business, No.49, Strahans Road, Perambur Barracks, Pattalam, Chennai 600 012 as per reply of the sixth respondent dated 04.10.2010) Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records and to quash the license issued to G.Raghuraman, S/o.Ganghadharan, the fifth respondent herein, License Code P039059360/2006-2007 dated 19.03.2010 by the first respondent to the Balaji Tiffin Centre running at Door No.49, Strahanas Road, (Perambur Barracks), Pattalam, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai 600 012.VINOD K.SHARMA, J.ORDER1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the license issued to G.Raghuraman, S/o.Ganghadharan, the fifth respondent, by the first respondent for running Balaji Tiffin Centre at Door No.49, Strahanas Road, (Perambur Barracks)...