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.
Auro Electronic Company. Vs. Udayakumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 made in A.S.No.223 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2000 made in O.S.No.81 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.J U D G M E N T1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the second defendant challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts below decreeing the prayer for specific performance of the contract by directing the first defendant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff.2. The learned first appellate Court also on appeal filed by the first defendant accepting the findings and conclusions reached by the trial Court for grant of decreeing the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 19.1.1993 for its execution rejecting the arguments advanced by both the 1st and 2nd defendants confirmed the same. As aga...
Rajendran. Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 26.07.2006, passed by the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.37 of 2004, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 10.07.2003, passed in O.S.No.420 of 2001, by the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.J U D G M E N T1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff as against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.37 of 2004 on 26.07.2006, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 10.07.2003, passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai in O.S.No.420 of 2001.2. Brief facts that led to the filing of the second appeal are narrated as under:-The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court, who filed the suit for restraining the defendants in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, on the ground that the suit property was originally allotted ...
Plaza Maintenance and Services Limited. Vs. Tamilnadu Generation and D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Writ Petition No.17322 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue NOC to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to draw and consume power from the third party producer, on a continuous basis, for the existing quantum utilized until 31.03.2012 in respect of connections 2245 and for an additional quantum of 500 KW for connection 2245.Writ Petition No.17324 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue NOC to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to draw and consume power from the third party producer, on a continuous basis, for the existing quantum utilized until 31.03.2012 in respect of connections 2418 and for an additional quantum of 330 KW for connection 2418.COMMON ORDER1. Writ Petition No.17322 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue NOC to the petiti...
Umapathi. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records from the fourth respondent in respect of the impugned telegram dated 24/9/2007 and quash the same.ORDER1. The petitioner is said to have been allotted work order dated 20/7/2007 by the second respondent to attend to all the improvement works pertaining to the cremation ground in Iravathanallur Village which is situate in the southern bank of river Vaigai immediately after City Corporation limits of Madurai City. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the work order, the petitioner put up a construction.2. It is stated that earlier, the cremation ground for the entire Village was situated adjacent to Madurai Ramanathapuram National Highways road and the same caused nuisance and health hazard to the public. Hence the villagers formed a Committee and in the Village Panchayat, they had decided to shift the cremation ground to the vacant site that lies adjac...
Chinnasamy. Vs. Ramathal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 9.6.2010 passed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.128 of 2010 in O.S.No.357 of 2006.ORDER1. Inveighing the order dated 9.6.2010 passed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.128 of 2010 in O.S.No.357 of 2006, this civil revision petition is filed.2. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:(i) The respondents 1 to 5 herein/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.357 of 2006 with the following prayer:'To pass a decreea) declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to the respective share of the suit properties as detailed in the plaint and put them in possession of their respective shares,b) aware compensation at a consolidated sum of Rs.24,000/- per annum towards the damage and mesne profits from the date of suit till possession is surrendered to the plaintiff;c) award the costs of the...
S.P.Ravishankaran. Vs. the Assistant Director of Horticulture
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
PRAYER:This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No. 2656 of 2002 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 recovery passed by the respondent vide No.2694/ 2001 dated 27.09.2001 with consequential prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondent to reimburse the recovered amount.O R D E R1. The petitioner joined the services as a Field Demonstration Officer on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange in the year 1987. In the year 1988, the Field Demonstration Officers were granted Special Pay @ 5%. The benefit was extended to the petitioner also.2. Thereafter, vide order No.U2694/2001 dated 27.9.2001, the Special Pay of 5% was ordered to be withdrawn by cancelling the order with retrospective effect. It was further ordered that the amount paid to the petitioner towards 5% Special Pay be withdrawn in 30 monthly instalments.3. The impugned order ...
Durai Singh and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring G.O.145, Revenue (L.R.1-2) dated 04.03.2005 consequent to the order of the third respondent in D1/RP19/1998 Land Reforms, dated 10.04.1998 as illegal, null and void.O R D E R1. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for a declaration declaring G.O.145, Revenue (L.R.1-2) dated 04.03.2005 consequent to the order of the third respondent in D1/RP19/1998 Land Reforms, dated 10.04.1998 as illegal, null and void.2. Shorn of unnecessary particulars, the relevant facts which require mention are as follows:One Dorairaj, was the owner of properties in Dalavoipattinam and Chinnakkampalyam villages. His holding of an extent of 22.36.0 hectares (5.589 std. Acres), was found to be in excess of the ceiling limit under the Land Reforms Act. The lands in Dalavoipattinam village were found suitable for distribution to the landless poor and accordingly, assignment thereof was made in ...
Mr.K.L.Mahipal. Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive, consider, process and approve the petitioners' applications for demolition and reconstruction by issuing planning permission for construction of residential building after demolishing the existing building in accordance with law of their property at Door Nos.25-39, Plot 90, AF Block, Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040 without insisting on production of No Objection Certificate from the third respondent or any other Authorities concerned.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive, consider, process and approve the petitioners' applications for demolition and reconstruction by issuing planning permission for construction of residential building after demolishing the existing building in accordance with law of their property at Door Nos.25-39, Plot 90,...
Subramaniyam. Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent dated 11/4/2007 in Lr.No.Me.Po/Rama/Thu.K.a/K.Me/Ko.L736 Rama/No.338/07 and quash the same and further forbearing the respondents herein not to disconnect the service connection bearing No.L-736 in the petitioner's premises for the non-payment of electricity bill charges for the months of 6/2000, 8/2000 and 10/2000 issued by the respondents.ORDER1. The petitioner is an ice factory. They have availed electricity service connection in Service Connection No.L-736 under the limits of the fourth respondent for the ice factory. For the consumption of electricity during the months of May - June, July - August and September - October, the respondents assessed the consumption charges at Rs.4,47,738/-. The petitioner disputed the same stating that the meter was a defective one. Since the amount was not paid in time, the respond...
Dr.(Smt) P.K.Vasanthi Rangarajan. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'A' dated 25.7.2005 in I.T.A.No.1753/MDS/2004 relating to the assessment year 2000-2001.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, raising the following substantial questions of law, relating to the assessment year 2000-2001:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that handing over of possession of the property under consideration by the appellant to the developer in September 1999 for development of the property under the development agreement would fall within the purview of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore transfer for the purpose of assessment of capital gains took place in the previous year relevant to the assessm...
- ‹ Prev
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- Next ›
- Last »