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.
G. Dhanapal Vs. Revathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to order withdrawing the case in H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2012 pending before the Sub Court, Harur and transfer the same to Principal Sub Court, Erode to have joint trial with the case in H.M.O.P.No.338 of 2011 pending therein and thus render justice.) 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent have made an endorsement that H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2012 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Harur and H.M.O.P.No.338 of 2012 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Erode may be transferred to Subordinate Court, Mettur to be tried together. 2. As per the endorsement, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.6 of 2012 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Harur and H.M.O.P.No.338 of 2012 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Erode are transferred to Subordinate Court, Mettur to be tried together. Conseq...
S. Rajamanickam Chettiar Vs. Karthigeyan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 21.1.2012 passed in I.A.No.128 of 2012 in O.S.No.49 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panrutti.) 1. This revision is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below in allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs to receive certain documents in evidence. 2. The respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. After the examination of PW1, three applications were filed by the respondents 1 and 2, one application in I.A.No.126 of 2012 to reopen the case and another application in I.A.No.127 of 2012 to recall PW1. I.A.No. 128 of 2012 which is impugned in this revision is to receive the document into Court. The learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram allowed I.A.Nos.126 of 2012 and 127 of 2012 and also allowed I.A.No.128 of 2012 stating that the earlier applications in I.A.Nos.126 and 127 of 2012 are allowed ...
Singaram Vs. Natarajan Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the District Munsif Court, Sankari to dispose of the Injunction petition in I.A.No.1341 of 2009 in O.S.No.538 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and thus render justice.) 1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a direction directing the District Munsif, Sankari to dispose of the Injunction petition in I.A.No.1341 of 2009 in O.S.No.538 of 2009 within a time frame fixed by this Court. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner filed O.S.No.538 of 2009 for injunction and also filed I.A.No.1341 of 2009 for temporary injunction and in that application initially notice was ordered and the respondent entered appearance on 21.12.2009 and the written statement was filed and the same was adopted as counter on 17.2.2010 ...
K. Sethu Mani S/O. Kamalakannan Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(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 pertaining to the Impugned Order in Tha.A.Po.Ka.Kumba/E2/177/2008 dated 14.08.2008 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal to the extent it denies the continuity of service and consequently to direct the respondent to provide the continuity of service to the petitioner in the post of Conductor taking into account his previous service from 09.12.1980 to 22.09.2007.) ORDER The dispute raised in this writ petition is, regarding interpretation of rights of the parties under Statutory Settlement entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty of this Court, to withdraw this writ petition, to take appropriate remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, by moving the Labour Court. The prayer is allowed, and the writ petition is ordere...
M/S. Emami Ltd, Kolkata and Another Vs. Athreya Incorporations Rep by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed as against the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem in I.A.No.823 of 2008 in O.S.No.136 of 2007.) 1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the defendants as against the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem in I.A.No.823 of 2008 in O.S.No.136 of 2007. 2. The long and short of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, for the disposal of this appeal can be encapsulated thus: (i) The respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit informa pauperis seeking the following reliefs: a) To permit him to sue informa pauperis b) Decree the suit by directing respondent/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,19,375/- to the petitioner and c) Direct the respondent/defendant to pay interest by way of damages at 18% p.a for the suit claim from the date of suit till the date of payment. d) Direct the respondent/defendant to pay the...
Union of India by Its General Manager Southern Railway, Chennai Vs. V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 16.07.2009 made in OA.No.117/2008 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 16.07.2009 made in OA.No.117/2008 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. The claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased A.Venkatesan, filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased left his house on 6.4.2008 at about 3.00 p.m. to go to see his relative, who was residing at Ennore after informing to the 1st claimant that he wold return soon after completion of the work. On 7.4.2008, the claimants came to know from the Railway Police, Korukkupet that the deceased had fallen down from the EMU Train near Attipattu Railway Station (home signal) at KM-21/18-6-8 ...
Union of India by Its General Manager Southern Railway, Chennai Vs. Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 14.07.2009 made in OA.No.122/2008 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 14.07.2009 made in OA.No.122/2008 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Kaya Jaggarao, filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. It was pleaded that on 7.5.2008, the deceased who was working as Coolie at Chennai wanted to go to his native place and started from Chennai-Egmore to Palasa, andhra Pradesh by purchasing a journey ticket, which was lost in the accident for the train Poindicherry-Bhubaneshwar Express Train No.2897 and boarded into general compartment which was over crowded on that date i.e. 7.5.2008 and when the train reached near Wimco Nagar R...
Athreya Incorporations Rep by Its Proprietor, Salem Vs. M/S. Emami Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Salem in returning the petitioner's application seeking directions for drafting of the decree without looking into the provision of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.) 1. This Civil Revision petition is focussed as against the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Salem in returning the petitioner's application seeking directions for drafting of the decree without looking into the provision of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. A 'resume' of facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: (i) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that the lower court despite setting the defendants exparte and passing thereafter the exparte ju...
M/S. Kapil Agencies Represented by Its Proprietor Vs. the Assistant Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in TNGST/40307/1999-2000 and quash the impugned order dated 31.5.2012 as the same has been passed contrary to Section 14 of the CST Act, 1956, read with 4 of the TNGST Act and also based on the instructions issued by the second, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents and so without jurisdiction and also against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Madras High Court in number of decisions that declared goods cannot to subjected to tax in the second and subsequent hands and therefore contrary to the provisions of the CST Act and TNGST Act.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 31.5.2012, relating to the assessment year 1999-2000, stating that it had be...
Union of India by Its General Manager Southern Railway, Chennai Vs. P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 26.11.2008 made in OA.No.106/2007 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 26.11.2008 made in OA.No.106/2007 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. The claimant filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of their son by name K.Sivakumar. It was pleaded that on 17.2.2002 at about 19.30 p.m., when the deceased was travelling in ES154 Electric Train from Tambaram to Beach, near Saidapet Railway Station, he was hit by an electric post at KMS-14/1, as a result of which, he fell down from the train and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital and on 18.2.2002 at about 1.35 a.m. he died. The father and mother of the deceased are the claimants. 3. The Appellant in the reply statement opposed the c...