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.
Nachammai Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Notice in A1-3000-2012, dated 28.05.2012 issued by the 1st respondent and to quash the same.) ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned notice dated 28.05.2012 issued by the 1st respondent. 2. The petitioner is the wife of one Chiidambaram, whose mother is the 2nd respondent herein. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint to the 1st respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, alleging that she is 83 years old and her husband is no more and there is a matrimonial dispute between her son and the petitioner herein and it is pending before the Family Court and the petitioner also filed a maintenance application. The petitioner has also given a complaint against the 2nd respondent and her son before the All Women Police Station and 2nd respondent's son is working in Malasia. ...
M/S. Aqua Granites G-1, Sakthi Towers, Chennai Vs. the Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Chennai, dated 29.07.2005 passed in IT (SS) A.No.137/Mds/ 1998 for the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97.) JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J) The following are the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee for the block assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity of hearing before the determination of undisclosed income of Rs.1,40,57,515/- and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that there was no infirmity in the determination of undisclosed income based on certain loose sheets for th...
Dr. H. Iyengaran Vs. the Selection Committee by Its Secretary, Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Selection Committee represented by its Secretary, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010, the first respondent herein to admit the petitioner to the Post Graduate Degree Course in M.D. (Radio Diagnosis).) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Selection Committee represented by its Secretary, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010, the first respondent herein to admit the petitioner in the Post Graduate Degree Course in M.D. (Radio Diagnosis). 2. The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner completed Under Graduate degree in Medicine-M.B.B.S. in the year 2004 at Madras Medical College, Chennai and after completion of the course, the petitioner attended the selection test conducted by the TNPSC in the year 2005 and got selected to the post of Assistant Sur...
Gandhimathi W/O. Karuppannan Vs. the District Collector, Karur Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 27.03.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.A1/245/2011/Sauthi and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to work in Gandhiar Middle School, Velayuthampalayam, Karur Panchayat Union, Karur.) ORDER 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of transfer. 2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner, that the petitioner is employed as Noon Meal Organizer, and vide impugned order, she has been transferred from Gandhiar Middle School, Velayuthampalayam, Karur Panchayat Union, Karur District to Keelaveliyur, Thogamalai Panchayat Union. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the conditions of appointment, as appointment of Noon Meal Organizers are made from the same locality, and tr...
P.M. Vatsla Vs. P. Balasubramaniam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
(Prayer: Appeals against the common judgment and decrees dated 29.11.2007 passed by the VI Additional City Civil Court at Chennai, in O.S.Nos.10837 of 1996 and 5923 of 1997 respectively.) JUDGMENT 1. Animadverting upon the common judgment and decrees dated 29.11.2007 passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.Nos.10837 of 1996 and 5923 of 1997 respectively, these two appeals are focussed. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two appeals would run thus: (a) Vatsala the appellant in both the appeals filed the suit O.S.No.5923 of 1997, seeking the following reliefs: "(a) For execution and registration of deed of sale by the defendant in respect of property bearing Door No.28, Akbarabad 1st Street, Kodambakkam, Madras 24 which is morefully described i...
Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
1. Vide Stay Order No.527/12 dt. 26.6.12, waiver of predeposit was granted to the appellant. Against the said order, Revenue filed an application for modification of stay order on the ground that, the finding of this Tribunal in the stay order that the adjudicating Commissioner has not specified the provisions of Act which the appellant has contravened, is to be modified as the adjudicating Commissioner in paragraph 13 of his order has clearly mentioned that the appellant has contravened para-16 of CBEC Circular No.128/95-Cus. dt. 14.12.95. Therefore, there is a mistake committed by this Tribunal which is apparent on record. Therefore, the stay order be modified. 2. Heard the learned SDR and considered his submissions. 3. As per Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty can be imposed on any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or abets any such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of this Act. But in the impugned order, the adjudicating Commissioner ...
L.S. Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2012
Vide impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed a demand of service tax of Rs.4,31,414/- along with interest and equivalent penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1944 and penalties under Section 77 of the Act. Aggrieved from the said order for imposing penalty, the appellant is before me. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are the exporter and during the course of export of goods, they have availed services from an agent located outside India to whom they are paying commission and as per reverse charge mechanism, they are required to pay service tax on commission paid to the agent who is located outside India. The appellant did not pay service tax for the period July-08 to Dec-08. As the appellant did not pay service tax for the impugned period, the Range Officer called for records and issued a SCN demanding service tax and imposing various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. After issuance of the SCN, the appellant paid the service tax along with ...
R. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Anna University of Technology, Rep. by Its Regis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Charge Memo Nos.AUT-T/REGO/5722/2011(B) dated 27.03.2012, AUT-T/REGO/1025/2011(C) dated 30.03.2012 and AUT-T/REGO/AC-MC/038/PA/2011 (D) dated 12.04.2012 issued by the first respondent and quash the same. COMMON ORDER 1. This common order shall dispose of W.P.(MD)Nos.5042 to 5044 of 2012, as common question of law and facts are involved. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Charge Memos under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the charge memos are without jurisdiction, as the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are not applicable to the petitioner, as he is governed by Service Rules of Anna University. 4. Th...
M. Sekar and Another Vs. the Assistant Director, Geology and Mining Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to measure and fix the boundary stones in the lease hold land measuring 1.00.0 hectare in S.No.1/4 (part 26), Anandalai Village, Walajah Taluk, Vellore District to enable the petitioner to begin the quarry operation.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader 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, had submitted that the second respondent may be directed to measure and fix the boundary stones, in respect of the lease hold land in question, as per the directions issued by the office of the District Collector, dated 01.03.2012. 3. In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the second respondent is directed to measure and fi...
Sri Malolan Educational Trust (Registered), Rep. by Its Honorary Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
(Prayer: 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 proceedings No.1-71706111 letter of rejection dated 27.06.2012 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to grant approval for the courses MBA and MCA for the current academic year 2012-2013.) ORDER 1. The petitioner trust represented by its Honorary Secretary, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 27.06.2012 issued by the respondents All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE) and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to grant approval for the courses to be run by the college established by the Trust in respect of MBA and MCA for the current academic year 2012-2013. 2. When the writ petition came up on 26.7.2012, this court ordered notice on admission and directed Ms.AL.Gandhimathi, learned Standing Counsel for the AICTE to get ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »