Chennai Court August 2012 Judgments
M/S. Bsr Steel Alloys, Represented by Its Proprietor Vs. the Assistant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in Pdl.178/2011/A2 dated 7.10.2011 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned as the same has been passed without granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated under section 39(15) of the TNVAT Act and Section 7(4)(b) of the CST Act read with Rule 9(1) of the CST (Registration and Turnover) Rules and also contrary to Rule 19 of the TNVAT Rules and further direct the respondent to restore the TIN 33970361368 and CST No.920508 of the petitioner.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent had cancelled the registration certificates of the petitioner, issued, both under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 and, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, without issuing a...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Moorthy and Another Vs. the Executive Engineer, O and M, Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition No.16460 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent dated 15.2.2012 in “TAMIL” ;/051-12. quash the same and direct the respondents to provide 30 HP agricultural service connection to the Well situated in Survey Old No.294, New No.14/2A2 (patta land) T.Goundam Palayam, Paramativellur Taluk. Writ Petition No.16461 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent dated 15.2.2012 in “TAMIL”;/051-12. quash the same and direct the respondents to provide 30 HP agricultural service connection to the Well situated in Survey Old No.294, New No.153/B/1B2 (patta land) Kothamangalam Village, Paramativellur Taluk, Namakkal District.) 1. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are mother ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayalakshmi Vs. the Appellate Authority, District Judge of the Nilgi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.03.2012 passed in W.P.No.26894 of 2007.) JUDGEMENT M.Y. EQBAL, CJ. 1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner against the order dated 22.03.2012 passed in W.P.No.26894 of 2007, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent District Judge, the Nilgiris (Appellate Authority) relating to the order passed in C.M.A.No.16 of 2006 dated 19.07.2007. 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal, are stated herein below:- The appellant’s case is that she is in possession of an extent of 330 sq. ft. land bearing Door No.88/868, Ooty Road, Coonoor for over 25 years. The said property belongs to the government and it has been described as ‘Saalai’ (road)...
Tag this Judgment!E. Mathivanan Vs. the State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Branch Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Ceratiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in the impugned order in No. BRI/12-13/16/060, dated 25.06.2012 passed by the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to sanction the Educational Loan in Application No. BRI/12-13/16/060 dated 27.10.2011 to the petitioner's Son M. Gokul.) 1. The petitioner's son joined B.E. (Civil Engineering) course in Sree Sastha Institute of Engineering and Technology during the academic year 2011-12. He obtained 59.5% in plus two examination. He made an application dated 27.10.2011 to the respondent-Bank for educational loan. He claimed Rs.3,83,000/-, but, restricted it to Rs.3,36,000/-. His request was rejected by the respondent-Bank by the impugned order dated 25.06.2012. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 25.06.2012 and for a direction to the respondent-Bank to sanction the educational loan...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant General Manager and Another Vs. the Presiding Officer Ce ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayers in W.P. No.39 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in I.D. No. 23 of 2008 and quash its award dated 22.06.2011. W.P. No.2101 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the first respondent, quash the award passed by the first respondent in I.D. No.23 of 2008 dated 22.06.2011 insofar as not setting aside the punishment of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority of the second respondent bank as confirmed by the appellate authority of the second respondent bank to pay full back-wages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation of the petitioner with all attendant benefits, continuity of service and all other terminal benefits.) Common Order: 1. Both the writ petitions seek to challenge the award dated 22.06.2011 passed by the...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Chennai Vs. R. Mahalingam and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the order dated 30.5.2003 made in WC.No.35/2002 by the Labour Deputy Commissioner-II for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai-6.) 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the order dated 30.5.2003 made in WC.No.35/2002 by the Labour Deputy Commissioner-II for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai-6 by the Insurance Company and the claimant respectively. 2. The claimant, who is the Appellant in CMA.No.3087/2003, filed the above said claim petition, claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him on 22.5.2001 at about 5.15 a.m., while he was driving the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-A-3346 owned by the 1st Respondent in CMA.No.3087/2003 and insured with the Appellant Insurance Company. After conducting enquiry, with due notice to the opposite parties therein, the Labour Deputy Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,99,491/- and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the award amount within a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Ethiraj and Others Vs. Sampoornammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2003 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Erode in A.S.No.5 of 2003 modifying the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai in O.S.No.34 of 1997.) 1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1,2,3,5 and 6, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 03.11.2003 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Erode in A.S.No.5 of 2003 modifying the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai in O.S.No.34 of 1997. 2. The parties, for thesake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: a. The first respondent/plaintiff-Sampoornammal filed the suit seeking the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Babu Vs. the Controller of Examination, Tamil Nadu M.G.R. Medic ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to complete the Course of P.G. in D.A. (Diploma in Anesthesia) within the Academic year (2007-2009). 1. An in-service M.B.B.S. Doctor has applied for admission to Post Graduate Diploma in Anesthesia (DA) for the academic year 2007-2008. He has been admitted to Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur. According to the petitioner, he has been regular in attending the classes. However, owever, due to illness, for some period, he did not attend the classes, for which he has produced medical certificate to the Head of the Department. The petitioner has further submitted that due to some internal departmental problems between the Heads of the Departments, the Medical Certificate produced by him was wantonly not produced by the Head of the Department (Anesthesia) Mr. Dr. Muthukumaran to the college office. Practical e...
Tag this Judgment!P. Lakshmanasamy Vs. the Director, Tasmac, Thaalamuthu Natarajan Maali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to receive the tender form from this petitioner and to conduct re-auction with respect of TASMAC Bar in Shop No.2015 Udumalpet and further direct the respondents not to shift the shop No.2015 by considering the petitioner's representations dated 23.07.2012 and 30.07.2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 30.07.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to dispose o...
Tag this Judgment!D. Srinivasan Vs. K. Gowri and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order, dated 06.11.2009, made in W.P.No.22653 of 2009.) ElipeDharma Rao, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 06.11.2009, made in W.P.No.22653 of 2009, whereby the direction sought for by the petitioner/first respondent herein to direct the first respondent therein to consider her representation, dated 03.08.2009, was granted and the first respondent therein, who is the second respondent herein, was directed to consider the said representation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he purchased a property measuring an extent of 0.04.5 hectares of land in S.No.36/1A2 in Gerugambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, by way of a registered sale deed dated 30.09.1994 and immediately, after purchase of the said land, patta was issued in his favour by the second respondent in RPT 3094/94-95 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »