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.
T.S.Thiyagarajan. Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
PRAYER:This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 2658 of 2003 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order of the respondent No.1 vide Na.Ka.No.397/97/Pa dated 29.11.1999 and the impugned order of the respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.98654/2000/DA3 dated 2.11.2002 with consequential direction, directing the respondents to pay arrears.O R D E R1. The petitioner while working as Co-operative Sub Registrar, Package, Ammapettai, Thanjavur district was placed under suspension by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kumbakonam on 24.04.2001. In view of the order of suspension, the petitioner was not allowed to retire, so as to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner for serious misconduct.2. The petitioner was issued a charge memo under Sec.17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvarur on the following cha...
A.Rama Tulasi. Vs. the Director General Cpwd, Nirman Bhavan. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 7th respondent vide proceeding No.1(6) CCD V/2011/2052 dated 14.12.2011 passed under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, in respect of the Quarters at Block No.26, Quarter No.202, Type-II, CPWD Quarters, GPRA, Indira Nagar, Chennai-600 020, and quash the same and further diect the respondents to deduct from the 10th respondent's HRA the rent and other incidental expenses relating to the Quarters under the occupation of the petitioner.M.JAICHANDREN, J.ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for and quash the proceedings of the 7th respondent, dated 14.12.2011, issued under Section 5(1) of the Public P...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ayyamalai, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
PRAYER:- Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Sub-Court], Athur, in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2000.P.DEVADASS, J.JUDGMENT1. Disputing its liability, the Insurance Company directed this appeal.2. The accident took place on 06.12.1999. The claimants, (Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal) who are parents of the deceased in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2000 are awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,42,800/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the deceased travelled as a gratuitous passenger, in a goods carrying vehicle, namely, tractor, this case is not covered under the policy. 4. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellant also cited the following decisions:-i) BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NAGAMMAL AND OTHERS [2009 ACJ 865];ii) THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. S.PALANISAMY AND OTHERS [C.M.A.Nos.2522 to 2533 of 2007, dated 30.08.2010] (Madras), (unreported);...
Selvarasu. Vs. Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and the decreetal order dated 20.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.212 of 2010 in O.S.No.113 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Villupuram.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 20.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.212 of 2010 in O.S.No.113 of 2006 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that a delay of 154 days in filing the application to get the ex parte decree set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was allowed for no good reason. The original suit is of the year 2006 and in such a case, condoning such delay would be deleterious to the welfare of the plaintiffs, who are the revision petitioners herein.3. A plain poring over and perusal of the records including the impugned order would reveal that the lower Court thought fit to give an opportunity to...
M.Lalitha, and ors. Vs. T.Bharathi Daughter of.Thangavel, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the award and decree dated 8.3.2005 made in MCOP.No.643 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Addl. District Judge), Salem.R. KARUPPIAH, J.JUDGMENTThe appellants/petitioners have filed this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for enhancement of compensation as against the award dated 8.3.2005 made in MCOP.No.643 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Addl. District Judge), Salem.2. The appellants/petitioners have filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.45 lakhs for the death of one Muralidharan in motor accident occurred on 28.4.2002. Briefly, the case of the appellants/petitioners is that on 28.4.2002, while Muralidharan and two others were returning by a car bearing registration No.TN-30-4344,&nb...
Sakthivel. Vs. the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to withdraw the S.C.No.191 of 2010 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem and transfer the same to any court at Krishnagiri District.ORDER1. The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.191 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem. He is facing prosecution for offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC. Seeking to transfer the said case from the file of the said court to any other court in Krishnagiri District, the petitioner has come up before this Court with this petition.2. The facts leading to this petition would be as follows:The accused was married to one Hemalatha. But he developed illicit intimacy with one Annakili @ Annalakshmi. In due course of time, Annakili @ Annalakshmi insisted upon the petitioner to marry her. Unable to bear with the same, according to the case of the prosecutio...
R.ilango. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Prayer: This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to dispose of the withheld candidate under B.C.quota by taking an appropriate decision regarding their suitability of candidature and consequently direct the respondents herein to select the petitioner herein for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II under B.C. Category in pursuant to the notification dated 18.04.2007.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, had submitted that a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 12.06.2012, made in W.A.No.2175 of 2011, had set aside the impugned selection list, dated 08.09.2009, in respect of the respondents 4 and 5 therein. A further direction had been issued to the Tamil Nadu Public Service commissi...
Mrs.Seema Jain. Vs. K.V.Narasimha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Civil revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23/73 and 1 of 1980 against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2012 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A.No.718 of 2010 in confirming the order and decree dated 24.09.2010 passed by the learned XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCOP No.2803 of 2008.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2012 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A.No.718 of 2010 in confirming the order and decree dated 24.09.2010 passed by the learned XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCOP No.2803 of 2008, this civil revision petition has been focussed by the tenants.2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, can b...
M/S. Deepak Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants being an assessee of central excise has not paid the excise duty due to financial crisis during the period January, 2009 to March, 2009. The return for the period January, 2009 to June, 2009, was also filed belatedly in June, 2009 and later on they have paid the duty also along with interest. As the appellants have failed in making the payment of duty in time, therefore, show cause notice was issued for appropriation of the same and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Both the lower authorities appropriated the demand and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, equivalent of the duty. Aggrieved by the said order of imposition of penalty, the appellant is before me. 3. It is the contention of the appellants that although...
M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2012
Heard both sides. 2. The short issue involved in this appeal is that whether the appellants are entitled for interest on delayed payment for sanction of refund of the rebate claim by the adjudicating authority or not. 3. The learned DR took the objection that the issue relates to grant of interest on rebate claimed and that the appeal regarding rebate claim is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals are required to be rejected. 4. I have taken note on the objection raised by the learned DR for maintainability of the appeal before this Tribunal. As it is a case of interest on delayed payment of rebate claim, the same was dealt by this Tribunal in the appellant’s own case vide Order Nos. 375 to 392/2012 dated 20.4.2012 and wherein this Tribunal has held that it is a case of interest on rebate claim and the same is maintainable before this Tribunal. Following precedent decisions, I turn down the objection raised by the learned DR. As the issue has been settled ...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »