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.
A.Varalakshmi. Vs. the Chief Manager and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writ of Declaration, declaring that the sale of the petitioner's property located at 10/1A3, Old No.3, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai referred to in the 1st respondent's Letter dt. 2.5.11 is unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires the Act and Rules and consequently direct the Bank to act only in accordance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules.ORDERD.MURUGESAN, J.1. The instant writ petition raises the following questions:-(1)Whether in terms of the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the secured creditor could sell the secured asset below the reserve price mentioned in the sale notice without the consent of the borrower/guarantor?(2)In the event the secured creditor obtains the consent of the borrower/guarantor to sell the secured asset for a price less than the reserve price, whether such consent would entitle the secured creditor to sell the secured ...
Mr. O. Muthu. Vs. the Commissioner of Land Survey and Settlement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the second respondent herein pertaining to his notification made in O.M.E1/865710, dated 1.7.2010 and to quash the order dated 1.7.2010 .ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the second respondent herein pertaining to his notification made in O.M.E1/865710, dated 1.7.2010 and to quash the order dated 1.7.2010 .2. The order under challenge passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer declining to grant rayatwari patta on the ground that the land, which is the subject matter of the claim, has already been taken over under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Rayatwari) Act 26/1948 and in accordance with G.O.No. 714 Commercial Taxes and H.R. & C.E. Dated 29.6.1987 and that the petitioner's application made after 20.8.1987 cannot be accep...
Bank of India Vs. S.Gopalan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorari calling for records relating to the proceedings in LAOP No.571/2004 in case No.315 of 2004, resulting in the order dated 03.09.2004 on the file of the 8th respondent and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioner, Bank of India, Elada Branch seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in LAOP No.571/2004 in case No.315 of 2004 on the file of the 8th respondent dated 03.09.2004 and to quash the order of such respondent.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate on behalf of the 8th respondent. No representation for respondents 1 to 7.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 to 5 effected borrowings from it, having executed due security documents. The dues of the respondents also stood acknowledged by them. The petitioner had, in keeping with the agreement, effected payment of the loan...
Ms.Sabari Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Writ Petition No.15378 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to adjust the unutilized 5,54,442 units purchased from 06.04.2012 to 24.04.2012 by the petitioner from the third respondent as requested by the petitioner in their representation dated 07.05.2012 and as permitted by this court in a batch of writ petitions.Writ Petition No.15379 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to adjust the unutilized 3,25,800 units purchased during February and March 2012 by the petitioner from the third respondent as requested by the petitioner in their representation dated 27.04.2012 and and as permitted by this Court in W.P.Nos.5976 to 5982 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012.O R D E R1. Writ Petition No.15378 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to adjust the unutil...
S.Diwakar. Vs. the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to its resolution No.90/2012 dated 22.1.2012 and to quash the same along with its referring of proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee Bo.II in D.C.C. No.18/2012 as it is arbitrary, ultra vires, erroneous error apparent on its face record, judicial adventurism and excess ism and invalid in so far as the petitioner is concerned.O R D E R1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a resolution passed by the Bar Council on 22.1.2012, taking up for investigation, a complaint of misconduct lodged by the respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioner.2. I have heard Mr.S.Diwakar, petitioner appearing in person, Mr.S.Y. Masood, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mrs.Raffia Saleem, the second respondent appearing in person, both on her behalf and on behalf of the third respondent, who is her son.3. The petitio...
Cce, Puducherry Vs. M/S. Inox Air Product Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
This appeal relates to the period prior to 01.04.2008 and the lower appellate authority had decided the case applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE and ST (LTU), Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. - 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar). As such, the impugned order requires no interference. Consequently, the appeal is rejected....
S.Sasidharan Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the 4th respondent pertaining to its order bearing No.166/2011-12 dated 1.11.2011 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to remove the workshop of the 5th respondent situated at Survey No.324/7B1 comprised in Nalloor Village, Kanyakumari District within a time frame.ORDERR.BANUMATHI, J1. This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in fl;ol mDkjp No.166/11-12 dated 1.11.2011 granting permission to the fifth respondent to put up a tin shed for running workshop and consequently to remove the workshop of the fifth respondent situated at Survey No.324/7B1 comprised in Nalloor Village, Kanyakumari District.2. Fifth respondent is a mechanic and he is running a workshop for four wheelers in Nalloor Village. Fifth respondent purchased the property in re- survey No.324/7B1 from one Jeyaraj of Thiruvattar Village ...
A.Vijayakumar Vs. the Regional Joint Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
PRAYERWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents resulting in the second respondent impugned order, dated 29.08.2009 passed in 3195/04/(N.2) A.10 and the subsequent confirmation of order passed by the first respondent dated 03.03.2010 passed in Revision Petition Na.Ka.No. 13783/09/Sha.Pa and quash the same and direction directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant General Manager on the vacancy cost in Thiruchirappalli Central Co-operative Bank, The Head Office.PRAYERAppeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order, dated 30.04.2010 of His Lordship Mr. Justice P.Jyothimani, made in M.P.(MD).No. 3 of 2010 in W.P(MD)No.6542 of 2010.COMMON ORDERB.RAJENDRAN, J.1. The Writ Appeal arises as against the interim order, granted in M.P.(MD).No. 3 of 2010 in W.P(MD)No.6542 of 2010, which is the main Writ Petition herein.2. When the Writ ...
S.M.Jesu Michael Jeyakumar. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to quash and set aside the conviction and sentence passed in Spl.C.C.No.4/2002 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Thoothukudi.JUDGMENT 1. The sole accused in Special Case No.4 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi is the appellant herein and he has challenged the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 31.01.2006 pronounced in the said case convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine for each one of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the ...
Mr.K.Gopinath. Vs. the President the Chennai Port Trust Employees
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2012
Prayer:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to handover the matured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) under Fixed Deposit Receipt No.0050228 deposited by deceased Meera Jothi which was matured in January 2009 along with interest.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. It has been stated that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been deposited with the respondent, in a Fixed Deposit, by the petitioners and their aunt late Meera Jothi under, F.D.R. No.0050228, dated 14.01.2008. The said Fixed Deposit had matured in the month of January, 2009. The claim of the petitioners is that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is in the respondent bank, as Fixed Deposit, should be paid to them, along with the accrued interest thereon, as it had matured in the month of January 2009.3. A counter affida...
- ‹ Prev
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 69
- 70
- 71
- Next ›
- Last »