Chennai Court August 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/S. Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Rep. by Its Manager Vs. the Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TNGST/1502596/ 2006-07 dated 01.06.2012 and to quash the same as illegal and contrary to Section 87-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent ought to have passed an order, for the assessment year 2006-07, accepting the returns filed by the petitioner, as per Section 87-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, read with Rule 8(8) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. Instead, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 01.06.2012, making certain observations and by disallowing the second sales exemption claimed by the petitioner and consequently, enhanci...
The Correspondent, G.M.R.C. Middle School Vs. the Joint Director of El ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to proceedings O.M.No.6076/A/5/2010 dated 08.12.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that, while passing the impugned order, dated 08.12.2010, certain adverse remarks had been made against the petitioner Management, as though the 3rd respondent had been compelled to submit a resignation letter, dated 17.08.2010. 3. The learned counsel had further submitted that, before such adverse remarks are recorded in the impugned order, contrary to the facts, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner Management. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent had submitted that Ru...
G. Ramesh Vs. A. Vimala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the Order dated 05.12.2010 made in O.P.No.1729 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Family Court, Chennai) JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI,J 1. This appeal arises out of the order in O.P.No.1729 of 2007 (05.12.2010) allowing the divorce petition filed by the respondent-wife and dissolving the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife solemnized on 24.03.2006 and also directed the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards permanent alimony within a period of three months from the date of the order. 2. Brief facts are that appellant and the respondent got married on 24.3.2006 at 'Arulmigu Sri Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil' at Thiruchendur according to Hindu rites and customs in the presence of elders and relatives. After the marriage, the appellant and respondent resided near Manali in Chennai. The appellant was employed in Santro Oils o...
M/S. Sai Baba Business Solutions Rep. by Its Partner Vs. the Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to release the goods viz., 90 Units of Used Multifunction Devices, imported vide Bill of Entry No.7520451, dated 28.07.2012, under Free as Second Hand Capital goods in terms of Para 2.17 read with Definitions under 9.12 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 without imposing any restriction in the absence of specific restriction in Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy and in Para 2.33 of Hand Book of Procedures 2009-2014 and any notification.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that this Court had passed an order, dated 27.02.2012, in a batch of writ petitions, in W.P.No.21732 of 2011, etc., (batch), dealing with similar issues, ...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Madaparambil Chambers, Kerala Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order made in M.C.O.P. No.1357 of 2005 dated 23.11.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.V) Tirupur. Cross Objectionis filed under Order 41, Rule 22 of C.P.C. against C.M.A.No.1499 of 2011 on the file of this Court against the decree and judgment in M.C.O.P. No.1357 of 2005 dated 23.11.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.V) Tirupur.) Common Judgment R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,75,000/- awarded for the death of Gandhimathi in road traffic accident on 25.11.2005, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.14,75,000/-, Claimants have preferred Cross Objection No.54 of 2012. 2. Brief facts are that on 25.11.2005 at about 10.45 A.M., deceased Gandhimathi was riding her TVS Scooty bearing registration No....
J. Sasikumar Vs. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide licence to the petitioner to run bar attached with wine Shop No.8771 in the tender conducted on 25.07.2012 as per the tender notice of the first respondent dated05.07.2012 being Ref. No.SEMATHOE/2973/TENDER/2012.) 1. 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 respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that the petitioner and one K.Rajesh had submitted their tenders, quoting a similar sum of Rs.1,98,100/-, for obtaining the licence to run a bar attached to TASMAC Shop No.8771, at Door No.290, Trunk Road, Srinivasa Nagar, Poonamallee, Chennai. However, in view of the fact that the third respondent, who is the owner of the premises in question, where the TASMAC Sh...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem Division Rep. by V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in proceeding No.7765/A4/2007, dated 17.12.2007 of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to cancel the time conference meeting fixed on 21.03.2012 by notice dated 8.3.2012 in R.No.7765/B1/2007 and pass such further or other orders.) ORDER 1. The petitioner is the State Transport Corporation. 2. The third respondent was issued a mini bus permit by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 17.12.2007 on the Chettipatti to Katheri Pirivu route. 3. This writ petition is questioning the aforesaid proceedings dated 17.12.2007, on the ground that the permit granted was contrary to the norms as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1530, Home (Transport III) Department, dated 17.11.1999. 4. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations. 5. It is averred that the writ petit...
Tvl. Dazzle Designer Tiles Private Limited, Represented by Its Managin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer:This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent herein in TNGST No:1322818/2005-2006 dated 16-05-2012 and quash it as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that no personal hearing had been given to the petitioner, inspite of such a request having been made by the petitioner, on 12.12.2011. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, dated 16.05.2012, is liable to be set aside. He had further submitted that it would suffice, if the impugned assessment order of the respondent, dated 16.05.2012, is set aside, and if an opportunity of personal hearing is given to the petitioner before a fresh assessment order is passed, by the respondent, pursuant to the revision notice issued...
Doveton Oakley Nursery and Primary School, Chennai Vs. the Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent and quash its order dated 22.12.2011 rejecting the petitioner's contentions and not considering that no opportunity of representing and/or being heard, had ever been given to the petitioner including in and under the proceedings Rc.No.8/PSFDC/PC/2010 dated 7.5.2010 of the 2nd respondent before the fixation of fees.) R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is the order of the Schools Fee Determination Committee dated 22.12.2011 in and by which the Committee rejected the objection filed by the writ petitioner school on the ground that the Tamilnadu Schools (Regulation of collection of Fee) Act, 2009 provides only one time redetermination and not more than that. 2. Doveton Protestant Schools Association is a society registered under Societies Registration Act. The said society is running Doveton Group...
R. Rajaraman Vs. the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.28342 of 2011 dated 10.7.2012.) The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, M.Y. Eqbal. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.28342 of 2012. Respondents 3 to 6 herein filed the writ petition to quash the advertisement dated 9.11.2011 issued by the second respondent for recruiting the Secondary Grade Teachers in Schools and to direct the respondents to appoint teachers with the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education, after conducting the Teachers Eligibility Test in accordance with the guidelines issued in Annexure to the G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011. 2. The sole contention of the writ petitioners/respondents 3 to 6 before the learned single Judge was that since the recruitment of Secondary Grade Teachers is in pursu...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »