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.
Sree Bannariamman Salavai Salai Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
(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 first respondent to return the cheques Nos.071489, 071490 and 071491 dated 04.08.2004 for Rs.16,441/- Rs.1,29,408/- and Rs.91,636/- respectively, issued by the petitioner, in favour of the first respondent, collected by the officers of the second respondent during the course of inspection on 04.08.2004.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for 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 cheques, bearing Nos.071489, 071490 and 071491, dated 04.08.2004, for Rs.16,441/-, Rs.1,29,408/- and Rs.91,636/-, respectively, shall be returned to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today. 3. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the responden...
A. Pankajam Vs. G. Balasubramaniam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
(Prayer: Appeals against the judgement and decree dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Coimbatore, in O.S.No.129 of 2006.) COMMON JUDGEMENT 1. A.S.No.682 of 2009 is focussed by the plaintiff and A.S.No.689 of 2009 is focussed by the defendants as against the judgement and decree dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Coimbatore, in O.S.No.129 of 2006, which is one for rendition of accounts; for setting aside the sale deeds and for permanent injunction. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) The appellant in A.S.No.682 of 2009 filed the suit O.S.No.129 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs:...
Sridharan Vs. Minor Lakshmisri @ Sruthilaya, Minors Rep. by Mother and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed as against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in O.S.No.210 of 1996.) JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in O.S.No.210 of 1996. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, in a few broad strokes, could be encapsulated thus: a] The respondents-minors through their mother as guardian filed the suit seeking partition for dividing the four items of the suit properties by metes and bounds and for allotting 1/3 rd share each in favour of the plaintiffs 1,2 and the defendant on the main ground that those properties are the ancestral properties. b) Rift occurred between the parents of the plaintiffs, viz., the defendant-Sridhara...
K. Umapathy Vs. A.C. Abraham Kinsely
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 23.12.2011 in I.A.No.10304 of 2011 in O.S.No.5511 of 2010, on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2011 in I.A.No.10304 of 2011 in O.S.No.5511 of 2010, on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner herein. The suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant, his men, agents, servants or anybody authorised through the defendant from in any manner carrying out construction work in the common passage ad-measuring 337.5 square feet situate in T.S.No.4692 of Block No.105 in No.112, T.Nagar Village, morefully described in Schedule C. 3. Pending suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.10304 of 2011 to amend the plaint averring as follows: (a) As per p...
A. Sukumar Vs. K.S. Chitra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the fair and decretal order, dated 27.10.2009, passed in F.C.O.P.No.918 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai.) JUDGMENT R.KARUPPIAH,J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the fair and decretal order, dated 27.10.2009, passed in F.C.O.P.No.918 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai. The respondent in the petition is the appellant herein. In this Judgment, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the petition. 2. The respondent/petitioner, who is the wife of the appellant, has filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also for permanent alimony of Rs.10 lakhs. 3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner/wife is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 26.1.1996 according to Hindu rites and customs and out of wedlock, a daughter viz. Va...
A.V. Meeran Mydeen Vs. A. Shahul Hameed and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in I.A.No.606 of 2012 in O.S.No.637 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil.) ORDER The respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No.637 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil, for the following reliefs: (a) A decree be given declaring that the plaintiffs are the members of the first defendant Jamaath, entitled to all the benefits, rights guaranteed under its bye-law and the subsequent resolutions and decisions of the general body and executive committee of the first defendant Jamaath. (b) An injunction be granted restraining the defendants, other office bearers, their men and persons claiming under them from interfering in availing the services of lebbais, modiers, and other in the functions held in the plaintiff's house and from interfering in the rights and privileges of the plaintiffs as members of the trust. 2. I...
M. Sanjay Gandhi Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-49-AF-8788 with Trailer within a stipulated time.) ORDER 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-49-AF-8788 with Trailer, within a time frame. 2. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that FIR in Crime No.29 of 2012 is registered for the offence under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner's brother. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.2 impounded the vehicle in the crime. Once the case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21 of Mines Act has been registered, and the matter is pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistra...
M/S. Edserv Soft Systems Limited, Rep. by Managing Director Ms. Gita V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in TIN:33481424321/2009-10 quash the impugned proceedings dated 1.3.2012, and further direct the respondent to consider the detailed objections filed along with annexure on 12.12.2011 and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law as per the provisions of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is engaged in the software business. For the assessment year 2009-2010, a total and taxable turnover of Rs.4,57,798/- had been reported, by the petitioner. Based on the inspection report, the respondent had passed an order of assessment, vide proceedings, dated 5.12.2011, accepting the returns. 3. It has been further stated that the respondent had issued a notice, dated 7.12...
K.N. Jayaraman Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Cum Deputy Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the file of the 1st Respondent pertaining to the final statement dated 24.05.1976 notified in the Gazette of Pondicherry on 04.06.1976, and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to remove the Lands in Survey No.271/3 and 274/1 in No.15, Melakasakudy Village, Nedungadu Firka, Thirunallar Taluk, Karaikal from the caption "land ceiling" in all revenue records.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader (Puducherry),appearing for the respondents. 2. Though the prayer of the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 02.04.2009, is directed to be disposed of, by the first respondent, on merits, within a specified perio...
M/S. Teleflex Medical (P) Ltd. Rep by Its Deputy General Manager A.M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in G.D.No.35/2012-13, dated 1.8.2012 and consequential proceedings dated 4.8.2012, quash the same and further direct the first respondent to release the bank guarantee executed by the petitioner for the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- in favour of the first respondent forthwith as security) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed: i) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.69,115/-, which is the amount of tax demanded by the authority concerned, while passing the detention order. ii) On payment...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »