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.
Saroja Vs. Gunasekaran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed as against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Court No.I), Chengalpattu in O.S.No.554 of 2004.) JUDGMENT 1. Saroja-the appellant, Gunasekaran -the first respondent herein, Seenivasan- the third respondent, Lakshmi Kanthammal- the fifth respondent, Krishnaveni-the sixth respondent and Shanthi-the seventh respondent along with their respective advocates have appeared before this Court during morning hours and they were directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar to depose about the memo of compromise which they filed. 2. Accordingly the Deputy Registrar(Judicial) returned the file after recording the sworn statements of those persons after getting marked the compromise memo as Ex.P1. 3. The learned counsel for R4-Muniyammal endorses no objection and on behalf of her a separate memo was filed claiming no share in the suit property and it is also recorded and the learned advocate affirms the s...
M. Ayyappan Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in C.No.3248/Regr/Academic/A2/2009, dated 06.09.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to publish the results of the petitioner pertaining to the final semester of III year degree in Bachelor of Law course held during May, 2009 and also directed to issue Transfer Certificate, Mark Statement, Conduct Certificate, Course Completion Certificate and Provisional Certificate to the petitioner, within a stipulated period as that may be fixed by this Court.) ORDER 1. This is a Writ Petition filed through Legal Aid. The petitioner herein is an HIV patient. He made an application for admission to one of the Government Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was given admission for the academic year 2006-2009 fo...
P. Rosu Reddy Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to furnish to the petitioner the D-7 copies or extracts of the Import records recovered from the Customs House, Chennai that stand in the name of the petitioner as per the representation made by the petitioner dated 02.04.2007.0 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 02.04.2007, 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 learne...
Durai Manamagil Mandram Rep. by Its Secretary T. Rajendhran Vs. the Su ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the lawful functions of the petitioner's club without any complaint or due process of law.) ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction forbearing the respondents from interfering with the lawful functions of the petitioner's club without any complaint or due process of law. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-club viz., Durai Manamagil Mandram is functioning in Karaiyampatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, from December 2011 and registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The club was formed for serving the village people. It is conducting sports activities and functioning without any complaint. But, however, the Police are interfering with the day-to-day activities of the club. On 25.07.2012 a representation was sent by the petitioner to the respondent. A r...
Union of India by Its General Manager Southern Railway, Chennai Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 09.06.2008 made in OA.No.2/2005 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 09.06.2008 made in OA.No.2/2005 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 her son by name S.Murali. It was pleaded that the deceased S.Murali had recently jointed before his death Vimco Factory as a worker and used to go for his work from Villivakkam to Chennai by train by purchasing ordinary ticket. On 23.08.2004 on his return journey in EMU train to Villivakkam and when the train was proceeding near Avadi, he fell down, suffered injuries and died at the spot. The claimant came to know from the Sub Inspector of Police/Perambur Police Station that the deceased who trav...
C. Rajendran and Another Vs. the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent too consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Directors of Agriculture/Horticulture in the existing vacancies, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court by placing him in the order of seniority as per the original list of seniority and to pass such further or other orders.) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Officer on 20.10.1983. Thereafter, he was working as Agricultural Development Officer in the same cadre, in the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture at Krishnagiri. 2. According to the petitioner, the next avenue of promotion is Assistant Director of Agriculture. 3. Whileso, a charge memo dated 25.9.2006 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was issued to the petitioner. He submitted his explanation denying the charges. However, he was imposed...
S. Venugopal Vs. the District Collector, Thiruvallur District
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(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 respondent to permit the petitioner by issuing necessary orders to quarry and transport 4000 lorry loads of savudu from Survey No.292 (PWD Tank) situated in Punnappakkam Village, Uthukkottai Taluk, Thiruvallur district by refunding a sum of Rs.64,000/- (Rupees sixty four thousand only) being the value of the balance 1000 lorry loads of savudu.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. At this stage of hearing the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader Additional Government Pleader has filed a counter affidavit, dated 30.07.2012, on behalf of the respondents. Para 13 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: "13) The application of the petitioner was considered and approved by the authority to remove 4000 lorry loads of Savudu. In the m...
P.S. Veerappa Vs. Palaniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
R.SUBBIAH, J., 1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering and advertising for sale, using the trade mark AGREEGOLD upon the goods P.V.C.Pipes, Rigid P.V.C.Pipes and tubes or in any media and use the same in Invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the applicants' registered trade mark AGRIGOLD under Nos.935848, 935849, 1051706, 1051758, 1051769, 1174585, 1174586, 1174587, 1174588, 1174589, 1174590, 1174592, 1174594, 1174595, 1174599, 1174600, 1174602, 1174603, 1174605, 1174607, 1174608, 1296901, 1176229 or in any manner infringing the applicants' aforesaid registered trade marks by using the mark AGREEGOLD either as prefix or suffix in the course of business pending disposal of the suit. 2. It is the case of the applicants/plaintiffs that the 1st ...
Union of India by Its General Manager Southern Railway, Chennai Vs. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 5.06.2009 made in OA.No.47/2006 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 5.06.2009 made in OA.No.47/2006 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 claimants, who are the parents and wife of the deceased K.Murugan, filed the above said claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased was working as a Mason and he used to visit Mitta Mula Halli Village periodically and return on the next day after finishing his work. As usual on 6.3.2006, the deceased left the house at Coimbatore to his native place. His parents later came to know about the incident from the Railway Police Authorities, Salem on evening of 6.3.2006 that the deceased while travelling in Tr...
M/S. Mrf Limited, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2012
(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal Nos.2115 of 2006, 1717 of 2008 and 2212 of 2008 are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench, Chennai-600 104, dated 6.12.2000 in T.A.Nos.151/99, 152/99 and 433/99.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The assessee is on revision as against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. 2. The assessee is a company manufacturing tyres and tubes and is also a dealer. It is seen from the facts herein that the place of business of the assessee was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 28.12.1989. The various factories and branches were also inspected on the same day. During the course of inspection and verification of records, it was found that the dealers had not paid tax on the last purchase of rubber effected from State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Madras. However, sales had been disclosed as...