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. Cooper Bussman India Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to grant Duty Draw Back of RS.49,19,915/- along with interest within the prescribed period or any other Writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in nature and circumstances of the case.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Though the prayer in the present writ petition is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.1.2012, is directed to be disposed of by the respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearin...
K. Rajendran and Others Vs. Union of India Rep.by Secretary Ministry o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
(Prayers: W.P.No.11460 of 2011: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the relating to the Officer order Ref.No.SVPISTM/00/2010-11, dated 08.02.2011 passed by the second Respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents to confer all the consequential benefits on the Petitioner. W.P.No.10751 of 2011: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Officer order Ref.No.SVPISTM/00/2010-11, dated 08.02.2011 as far as the petitioner is concerned and the consequential office order in Ref.No.SVPISTM/00/2011, dated 24.3.2011, both passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents to confer all the consequential benefits on the Petitioner.) 1. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, ...
The TuticorIn Spinning Mill Limited, Rep. by Its Factory Manager, P. S ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
(Prayer: Prayer in W.P(MD)No.8550 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the demand notice dated 23.7.2011, issued by the respondent for assessment numbers 510412 to 510416, 510464, 510465 and 511366 in respect of the building situated in No.106, Palayamkottai Road(West) Ward No.51, Thoothukudi for the year 2010-11-II and 2011-12-I and quash the same. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.1388 of 2010:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent for the assessment numbers 510412 to 510416, 510464, 510465 and 511366 in respect of the building situated in No.106, Palai Main Road(West), Ward No.51, Thoothukudi for the year 2008-2009 and to quash the same. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.2257 of 2011:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 o...
C. Ranganathan Vs. the District Collector, Kancheepuram District and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the third respondent's Resolution No.131, dated 11.5.2012 and quash the same and direct the third and fourth respondents to allot the work to the petitioner.) 1. A Resolution passed by the third respondent-Maraimalai Nagar Municipality has been called in question in this Writ Petition in Resolution No.131, dated 11.5.2012, seeking to quash the same and for consequential direction to allot the work to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: (i) The petitioner is having an experience of doing contract work and renewed his contract as a Registered Contractor with the fourth respondent's Municipality in and by proceedings, dated 1.4.2012. The fourth respondent issued a Notification dated 9.2.2012 calling for sealed tender from the Registered Contractors in respect of laying 53 concrete road works. The pe...
M. Nedunchezian and Others Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamilnad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Honourable Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to bring the pay of the petitioners on regular scale of pay with effect from December 2003 onwards as per G.O.Ms.No.198 (MAWS Department) dated 26.10.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.199 (MAWS Department) dated 12.8.1997 in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.25620/2006 dated 17.9.2008 and W.A.No.47/2010 dated 23.6.2010 with all consequential and attendant benefits.) 1. The petitioners were all daily wage employees for a long time prior to 31.12.1996 in the third respondent-Municipality. 2. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.198 MAWS (D) dated 26.10.1998 to give consolidated pay to the daily wage employees who were in service prior to 31.12.1996 and on completion of 3 years of service in consolidated pay, they shall be given scale of pay and their service shall be regularised. 3. Accordingly, the petitioners were given consolidated pay o...
Mannangatti Kounder Vs. Kuppu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
(Prayer: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2004 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.223 of 2003 confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2002 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram in O.S.No.181 of 2000.) JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is focussed by the first defendant, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2004 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.223 of 2003 confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2002 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram in O.S.No.181 of 2000. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, can be encapsulated thus: a] The respondents 1 and 2 herein, viz., Kuppu and Savithiri filed the pres...
Union of India by Its General Manager Southern Railway, Chennai Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 16.4.2009 made in OA.No.128/2007 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 16.4.2009 made in OA.No.128/2007 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant/2nd Respondent herein. 2. The claimant filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of her son by name K.Sundaramurthy. It was pleaded that on 12.8.2005 at about 22.00 hours, the deceased, who was a handicapped person, in order to proceed to Chennai to attend the Independence Day Celebrations, wanted to purchase a ticket with concession. However, as he did not carry the required certificate, he was denied concession ticket and he purchased an ordinary ticket. When the deceased attempted to board the train, as he was handicapped, he slipped down and met with th...
M/S. Madhu Trading Company, Represented by Its Proprietor Vs. the Join ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to active the petitioner's TIN NO.33380061332 in view of the orders passed by the thrid respondent in Letter No.568/2012/A3, dated 27.6.2012 restoring the petitioner's TIN No.33380061332 and also in view of the representation of the petitioner dated 9.7.2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing 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 on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the TIN number of the petitioner had been restored. 3. In view of above submission, since, no further orders are necessary, the writ petition stands closed....
Commissioner of Customs (imports) Chennai Vs. Paragon Sales Agency
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Revenue has challenged the impugned order by way of this appeal to the extent the observations made by the first appellate authority in paragraph 9 of the impugned order which is reproduced herein below :- “The appellants have stated that as per the provisions of Regulation 6(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009, no rent or demurrage is chargeable on goods detained or seized or confiscated by the proper officer and sought for issue of a ‘detention/demurrage waiver certificate’. The appellants’ plea in this regard is reasonable and justified. The bill of entry has been filed on 6.7.2009 and the impugned order has been passed on 13.1.2012. It is not known why the lower authority had unduly taken the precious time of the appellants to pass the order. The appellants have stated that the file has been passed through three adjudicating authorities. Whether this is the reason behind the delay! Whatever, be the reason, the time lapse of more tha...
Hemalatha Ranganathan Vs. the Authorised Officer Indian Bank Circle Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 22 February 2012 in Crl.M.P.No.821 of 2012 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore; quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to hand over possession of the portion of the property bearing New No.7, Old No.3, M.G. Ramachandra Road, Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90.) K.K.SASIDHARAN, J Introductory: 1. The collusive sale made by the Authorised Officer, Indian Bank in favour of a person, who was not even a bidder and the conduct of auction proceedings, in spite of the stay granted by this Court, restraining the Bank from proceeding further with the sale and the subsequent action taken by the Authorised Officer, to take possession of the property by approaching the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »