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.
Muthusamy Vs. Natarajan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2003 in M.C.O.P.No.418 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam.) JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal being aggrieved against the award passed by the Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, (MACT), in MACT.O.P.No.418 of 2002 dated 27.05.2003. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 26.09.1996, while the appellant / claimant was driving his mini lorry from Tindivanam to Pondicherry, he had seen a tipper orry coming in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and on seeing it immediately he stopped the vehicle on the left side of the small bridge and inspite of so stopping vehicle dashed against the mini lorry causing grievous injury to the claimant on his right leg and hip resulting in permanent disability. The Tribunal though awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,3...
E. Jayabalan Vs. the Managing Director, Cmwss Board, Chennai and Other ...
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 relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 10.2.2009 in its Proc.No.CMWSSB/PandA/VC(A)/42507/2008 confirming the appellat order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.10.2008 in its appellate order Proc.No.CMWSSB/PandA/VC@/000924/2007 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant all consequential service, monetary benefits and grant the petitioner.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined in service as a demand server, under the respondent Board, in the year, 1982. In consideration of his meritorious service he had been promoted, as a depot manager, and he had been serving in Area VII, Vepery, Chennai. While so, on 29.4.2008, he had been convicted and s...
M/S. N.S.K. Cement Agency and Blue Metals, Rep. by Its Proprietor NA. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner and his Customers Right to Transport Sand from Pondicherry to Kerala with valid documents checked and vouched by the check posts of Tamil nadu.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents, from interfering with the rights of the petitioner concern and that of its customers, to transport sand from Puducherry to Kerala, with valid documents. 3. In similar facts and circumstances, this Court had passed an order, dated 30.01.2012, in W.P.No.1209 of 2012. Paragraph 5 of the said order, reads as follows: "5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Cou...
V. Jayalakshmi and Another Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer in W.P.No.217 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 5th respondent made in PEN.20/I/RTD/12004066/ADK/332, dated 7.12.2010 and quash the same, consequent to direct the fifth respondent to authorize the pension proposal forwarded by the 6th respondent vide her letter R.C.No.99/2010, dated 13.10.2010 and thus to pay all the retirement benefits including monthly pension with 12% interest to the petitioner and pass such further or other order. Prayer in W.P.No.242 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 5th respondent made in PEN.17/05/11704871/Final Reply/118, dated 20.07.2011 and quash the same, consequent to direct the fifth respondent to authorize the pension proposal forwarded by the 4th respondent vide his letter R.C.No.Nil/A1/20...
S. Muthusamy S/O. M. Sanmugavel thevar Vs. the Secretary, Government o ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2012, regarding Employment Assistant, on account of land acquisition in view of the G.O.Ms.No.656 Labour and Employment Department dated 29.06.1978.) ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 30.05.2012 regarding Employment Assistant, on account of acquisition of his land, in view of G.O.Ms.No.656 Labour and Employment Department dated 29.06.1978. 2. The writ, as framed is not maintainable. Writ of Mandamus can be issued when the petitioner has a legal right and the respondents have corresponding legal duty to redress the grievances. The representation is in the nature of Notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and thus a pre-requisite before coming...
M/S. Cibi Sago Factory Rep. by Its Proprietor, Namakkal District Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TNGST No.3161925/2004-2005 and quash the impugned order dated 31.5.2012 as the same has been passed contrary to the provisions of the TNGST and also against the principles of natural justice.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order, dated 31.05.2012, had been passed by the respondent, without issuing a prior notice to the petitioner, as per Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In view of the above, the impugned assessment order of the respondent, dated 31.05.2012, is set...
M/S. Diva Export Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Authorized Signatory Mahurkh M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: The contempt petition has been filed under Sec.11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for disobeying the order passed by this court, dated 10.06.2011 in Writ Petition No.5671 of 2011.) ORDER The contemnor is present in Court today. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed before this Court an order, dated 10.07.2012, sanctioning the Drawback amount in favour of the petitioner. 2 In such circumstances, as no further orders are necessary, the contempt petition stands closed. No cost....
P. Hariharan Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai and Others
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, calling for the records of the first respondent in C.No.10130/Stay/CIT-X/2011-12 relating to the application made by the petitioner for stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and quash the impugned order, dated 16.3.2012, rejecting the stay petition and direct the first respondent to grant stay of demand relating to the assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10, pending disposal of the appeal before the third respondent.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had filed the return of income, for the assessment year 2009-2010, on 9.11.2010, admitting a total income of Rs.1040/- and it had been processed, under Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, t...
A.K. Malini Vs. Mahra Booshanam, the District Collector, Salem Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
(Prayer: This contempt petition has been filed under Sec.11 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, read with Art.25 of the Constitution of India, to punish the respondent for disobeying the order passed by this court, dated 01.03.2011 made in Writ Petition No.4892 of 2011.) 1. The contemnor is present in Court today. It is submitted that he had not committed willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 01.03.2011, in W.P.No.4892 of 2011. It is only due to certain administrative reasons, the order passed by this Court, on 01.03.2011, could not be complied with, within the time limit specified by this Court. 2 The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, has placed before this Court an order passed by the respondent, on 03.08.2012, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 01.03.2011. 3 In view of the above, as no further orders are necessary, the contempt petition stands closed....
R. Thirunavukkarasau and Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
(Prayers: W.P.No.19631/2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned seniority list dated 1.1.2011 prepared by the fourth respondent for promotion of mathematics graduate teachers in Udumalpet Panchayat Union, Tiruppur District, to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to prepare a fresh seniority list for promotion for mathematics Graduate Teachers in Udumalpet Panchayat Union, Tiruppur District with eligible and qualified Teachers. W.P.Nos.14864 to 14868, 15578 and 15579 of 2012: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of Writs of Mandamus, directing the second respondent who in his proceedings dated 12.5.2012 has directed the third respondent to prepare a panel of BT Assistants from SGTrs to include in the panel only those SGTrs with 10+2+3 year degree in the concerned discipli...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »