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.
M.A.K.Balakrishnan. Vs. P.Chandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer: This second appeal is filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.28 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 16.06.2008 modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4710 of 1996 (C.S.No.429/1998- Original Side, High Court, Madras) on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 17.06.2003.JUDGMENT1. The defendants 3 to 6 are the appellants. Originally the plaintiff C.Amminiammal filed a suit, on the file of the Original Side of the High Court, Madras, in C.S.No.429 of 1988 against one Devaki and Bhuvaneswari, for partition of her half share in the suit properties.2. The case of the plaintiff C.Amminiammal was that her son Govindaraju was alloted plot No.4832, 6th Cross Road, Anna Nagar, Madras and before he obtained a sale deed from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, he died in harness on 14.01.1985 leaving behind his widow the 1st defendant and the plain...
Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ms.Singapore Airlines Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
APPEALs under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 13.07.2005 in I.T.A.Nos.701 to 706/Mds/2002 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The Revenue has filed the above Tax Case (Appeals) as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. This Court, by order dated 06.02.2006 admitted the above Tax Case (Appeals) on the following substantial question of law:"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that payment of landing and parking charges is to be treated as payment of contractors under Section 194 C and not as payment of rent under Section 194 I of the Income Tax Act?"2. The assessee is an international airlines. In the course of the assessment proceedings, for the assessme...
C.Sankari. Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Declaration, to declare that the order of the second respondent vide Lr.No.PPG/PEN/95/574 dt.21.3.2002 in the so far as fixing qualifying service as 20 years is contrary to Regulations 14 and 35 (6) (a) of Pension Regulations 1995 as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to grant the petitioner pro-rata pension in terms of pension regulation 1995 together with interest at 12% p.a. from April 2006 or in the alternative direct the State Bank of Hyderabad to grant pension benefits together with interest at 12% p.a. from April 2006 in terms of the settlement dated 27.04.2010.(prayer clause amended as per order of this Court dated 25.01.2012)O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of declaration, that the second respondent's order No. Lr.No.PPG/PEN/95/574 dt.21.3.2002 in fixing the qualifying service of 20 years for gra...
V.SusilA. Vs. R.Murugan, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer: Civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 08.07.2009 in I.A.No.272 of 2008 in O.S.No.86 of 2008 on the file of Sub Judge, Panruti.R.BANUMATHI, J.ORDER1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner before the Sub-Court, Panruti in I.A.No.272 of 2008 in O.S.No.86 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C and declining to implead the 2nd respondent as the 2nd defendant in the suit, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition.2. The first respondent filed O.S.No.86 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Panruti for recovery of money based on promissory note. Revision Petitioner/defendant resisted the suit contending that she has not borrowed the amount and that she has not executed the suit promissory note. Stating that one Thayalan and the 2nd respondent - Arumugam are partners of Anantha Finance and Sri Buvanesware Finance and that only 2nd respondent had obtained the signa...
C.Sundar Raj. Vs. the District Collector, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned charge memo vide Roc.No.A3/6575/04 dated 30.03.2011 issued by the second respondent and quash the same as null and void.ORDER1. The petitioner was working as a Village Administrative Officer in Ezhudesam Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.2. One Mr.J.Paul Dharmaraj of Sempilanthivilai Veedu, Kirathoor, Kanniyakumari District, on 12.11.2003, lodged a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as bribe for issuing bail bond Certificate.3. According to the complainant, when he expressed his inability to pay the amount of Rs.200/-, the petitioner reduced the demand for a sum of Rs.100/- and directed him to come on 13.11.2003 with Rs.100/- to get the report.4. Accordingly, Mr.J.Paul Dharmaraj, went to the office of the petitioner, on 13.11.200...
The Association of Market Building. Vs. the Commissioner, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in auction notice Na.Ka.No.394/2012/A3, dated 9.4.2012, quash the same on directing the respondents to allot the shops in favour of (1) Kasi Manoharan, S/o Kasi Nathan, shop No.1 in the Municipal bus stand, (2) Kadar Saibu S/o Abdul Aziz,shop No.2, Municipality bus stand building shop, (3) Kasi Ramani S/o Kasi Nathan, shop No.3, Municipality bus stand building shop (4) Zaheer Basha, S/o Abdul Amed, shop No.4, Municipality bus stand building shop, (5) Lingaiyyah, S/o Murugaiyan, shop No.2 in demand No.7, main bus stand building shop, (6) Ramalingam, S/o Mani Mandiran, shop No.1, demand No.9 at main building shop, (7) Prakash, S/o Ramalingam, door No.2 in demand No.10, main bus stand building shop, (8) Annadurai, S/o Parusyuraman, door No.5, demande No.473, Municipality bus stand building shops, (9) M.G.Sundar,...
Ramamurthy. Vs. Yashodha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer: This second appeal is filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.38 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 28.02.2011, confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.1079 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, dated 30.01.2008.JUDGMENT1. The defendants 2 to 7 are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the properties.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit properties originally belonged to Govinda Mudaliyar and he had four sons, namely Rajagopal, Thangavel, Rajamanickam and Perumal and the father and sons sold the suit property and other properties to one Chinnamma Ammal and Kuppusamy under a registered sale deed, dated 10.04.1941 for a valid consideration of Rs.400/- and from the date of sale, the said Chinnamma Ammal and her son Kuppusamy were in possession of the properties. The said C...
Marriammal. Vs. Samiathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and the decreetal order dated 23.01.2012 made in I.A.No.1889 of 2011 in I.A.No.404 of 2011 in O.S.No.206 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 23.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.1889 of 2011 in I.A.No.404 of 2011 in O.S.No.206 of 2002 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. An abstract and summation of the germane facts in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus:The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition as against ten persons. Ultimately the ex parte decree was passed. D2 filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay of 2378 days condoned in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. The precise contention of the revision petitioner was that no suit summons was served on her and she had not given Vakalat to any Ad...
Adhikesavalu Reddiar. Vs. R.Selvarathinam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer in S.A.No.1468 of 2007: This second appeal is filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.78 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet, dated 16.04.2007 reversing the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.129 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurantagam, dated 31.01.2005.CRP(NPD)No.3484 of 2008: This revision has been filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and decretal order dated 16.04.2007 made in I.A.No.2293 of 2005 in A.S.No.79 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet.COMMON JUDGMENT1. The defendants are the appellants. The first respondent S.Radhabai filed the above suits for declaration that the sale deeds, dated 08.12.1995 and 24.11.1995 were obtained from her by the defendants/appellants by practicing fraud and misrepresentation and therefore, prayed to set aside the sale deeds and for injunction restraining the appellants fro...
P.Senthilnathan. Vs. the Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent herein in Lr No.46/2012-1, Sa.Ma.Pe.Se (Vi.Ni2) dated 29.05.2012 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents herein, their men, agents, servants or any other person or persons claiming through them or authorized by them from in any manner interfering with the right of the petitioner in running the cable TV network under the name and style of "Moon Star Cable TV Network" at "B" block, Ground Floor in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Members' Residential quarters.ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order issued by the second respondent in favour of the third respondent for the grant of service of Cable TV connection in respect of the houses in the quarters meant for the members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly ...