Chennai Court August 2012 Judgments
Hotel Sooriya Heritage Inn Represented by Its Chairman, Pondicherry Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.8787 of 2012 dated 31.07.2012 on the file of this Court.) A. Arumughaswamy, C.J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2012 made in W.P.No.8787 of 2012, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the first Respondent in Proceedings No.71211/DM/RO/Tah(LandO)/D2/2011 dated 27.03.2012 under Section 18(1)(a)(b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, ordering the closure of the appellant hotel. 2. The Writ Petition came to be filed in the following circumstances:- One Kasthuri alias Ramya (name changed as Pooja) had preferred a complaint before the Circle Inspector of police, Grand Bazaar Circle on 25.11.2011. In the said complaint, she alleged that due to a petty quarrel with her parents at Chennai, she left her house out of dejection and came out to Puducherry. From Puducherry Bus Stand, she con...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Radhakrishnan Vs. K and N Trade, Rep by Its Managing Partner, L. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1. Revision petitioner is the second defendant in the suit. The suit O.S.No.1757 of 2011 was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any manner evicting the plaintiff from the property more fully described in the schedule except following due process of law. Pending the said suit, the first respondent also filed an interlocutory application I.A.No.2266 of 2011 for grant of interim injunction. 2. The case of the first respondent before the trial Court was that he was a firm actively associated with Reliance Telecommunication and engaged in the distribution of e-recharging coupons and peripherals of Reliance group of companies; for the purpose of the said business, the firm had taken on lease the suit premises on 27.05.2006 and 27.12.2006; since the process was a continuous one, the lease period was extended on 21.10.2011; while the activities...
Tag this Judgment!R. Murugan Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
(Prayer: Revision is filed to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.388 of 2011 dated 27.12.2011 against S.C.No.184 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge Thiruvallur, Additional District and Sessions Court (F.T.C. No.III) and set aside the same.) 1. The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.184 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Court (F.T.C. No.III), Tiruvallur. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 209 and 193 Cr.P.C stating that a final report should have been filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate i.e., Judicial Magistrate Tirutanni and thereafter, only the case should have been committed to the Sessions Court, Tiruvallur. The CBI filed final report erroneously before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu had committed the case to the Sessions Court of different district i.e., Tiruvallur. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu had no power to co...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sundarrajan Vs. the Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
COMMON ORDER P. JYOTHIMANI,J. The issue involved in all these cases relates to the commissioning of Units 1 and 2 of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (for brevity, "KNPP"). Even though the prayers in these writ petitions are different, they are taken up together, since the issue is one and the same. W.P.No.24770 of 2011 2.1. This writ petition is a public interest litigation. The petitioner, who is an Engineering Graduate in Electronics and Instrumentation, claims to be a trustee of a public trust called "Poovulagin Nanbargal", which is connected with environmental and other issues. After coming to know from the newspapers that the Government of India, represented by the Department of Atomic Energy will commission the KKNPP by November, 2011, he has filed the said writ petition for a direction against respondents 1 and 3 to undertake a fresh and transparent review of KKNPP at Kudankulam, Tirunelveli District, Tamil Nadu by an independent body of experts, including those of the Departme...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Jesu Vs. S. Velayutham and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 4.2.2002 passed by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, in O.S.No.8143 of 1997.) 1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff in the suit as against the judgement and decree dated 4.2.2002 passed by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, in O.S.No.8143 of 1997, which was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell. 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 herein/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.8143 of 1997 seeking specific performance, with the following reliefs: "to pass a judgement and decree for a specific performance 1. Directing the 1st defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nomin...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sankaranarayanan Vs. the District Collector, Virudhunagar and Other ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate permission and protection to the petitioner and their community members to worship and celebrate the Pongal festival at Arulmigu Muthalamman Thirukoil, T.Karisalkulam, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District on 15.08.2012 and 16.08.2012.) ORDER 1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to provide permission and adequate protection to the petitioner and his community members to worship and celebrate Pongal Festival at Arulmigu Muthalamman Thirukoil, T.Karisalkulam, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District, on 15.08.2012 and 16.08.2012. 2.The writ petition came up for admission on 10.08.2012 and on that day, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice for the respondents 1 to 4 and in respect of the private res...
Tag this Judgment!Sbm High School Rep by Its Correspondent, Namakkal District Vs. the St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records made in the impugned order of the 3rd respondent passed in Na.Ka. No.1385/A3/2011 dated 29.2.2012 and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner is a private school under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. It is a High School. It was started in the year 1923 as Middle School. The same was upgraded as High School in the year 1990. The school gets 100% aid from the Tamil Nadu Government. 2. The second respondent sanctioned one post of Junior Assistant by an order dated 05.12.1997 apart from sanctioning other posts. 3. One Tmt. C.Parvathi, who was serving as Junior Assistant was promoted as B.T. Assistant in the School on 28.2.2011. In the resultant vacancy, one Thiru.G.Kumar was appointed as Junior Assistant by the school by an order dated 28.02.2011. 4. The third respondent approved the appointment of the said Kumar by an order d...
Tag this Judgment!N. Suresh Vs. the Additional Director General of Police, Enforcement a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorari to call for the impugned order of the first respondent in his proceeding C.No.P4/3402/2012 dated 13.08.2012, impugned order of the second respondent in his proceeding Rc.No.P-1/9083/2012 dated 16.08.2012 and impugned order of the third respondent in his proceeding A7/1870/2012 dated 17.08.2012 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the third respondent had passed an impugned order, dated 17.08.2012, based on the recommendations of the first and second respondents, dated 13.08.2012 and 16.08.2012, respectively, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 17.08.2012, is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned counsels appearin...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Src Projects Private Limited Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Prohibition, to prohibit the respondents from imposing the re-sale tax on the re-sale of the bitumen emulsion by the petitioner in view of Notification No.II(1)/CT/40(b-4)/2002 G.O.Ms.No.79/CT/B2 dated 27.6.2002 exempting re-sale tax on bitumen.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed a copy of the order, dated 24.7.2012, made in W.P.No.24303 of 2004, setting aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent, in TNGST No.2661801/02-03, in so far as it relates to the imposition of penalty, under Section 12(3) of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 3. The learned counsel had further submitted that it would be open to the respondent to pass an appropriate order relating to the exemp...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Vs. Thiruvannamalai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 5.12.2003 made in MCOP.No.448/2002 by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-II) (MACT) Salem.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 5.12.2003 made in MCOP.No.448/2002 by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-II) (MACT) Salem, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,56,500/- as total compensation to the claimants 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased Raja Annamalai, who died in the motor accident that had occurred on 8.1.2002, with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »