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.
Sellappan and Another Vs. Hari and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.8.1995 made in MCOP.Nos.27 and 28/1990 by the learned Additional Sub Judge (MACT) Chengalput.) 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.8.1995 made in MCOP.Nos.27 and 28/1990 by the learned Additional Sub Judge (MACT) Chengalput. 2. The facts in brief are that the deceased in both the claim petitions viz. Devanandan and Purushothaman are brothers and sons of the claimants/appellants. On 4.10.1988 at 6. a.m. when the deceased were proceeding in a motorcycle from Madras to M.Pudupakkam, the car belonging to the 1st Respondent came in the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, both the deceased brothers sustained fatal injuries. The claimant, who are the parents of the deceased brothers, claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the death of the deceased in MCOP.No.27/1990 and Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of the decea...
M/S. Abraham Memorial Educational Trust and Others Vs. C. Suresh Babu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer in both the O.Ps: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records, quash the private complaints in S.T.C.No.68 of 2012 and S.T.C.No.71 of 2012 respectively for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Hosur.) Common Order 1. Whether a Public Charitable Trust is a juristic person and a company in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is the issue involved in these petitions. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9 in S.T.C No.71 of 2012 as well as in S.T.C. No.68 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Hosur. Seeking to quash the said cases, the petitioners have come up with these Criminal Original Petitions. The common respondent in these Criminal Original Petitions is the complainant in both the cases before the Trial Court. 3. Since common issues have been raised in both these ...
M/S. Southern Cogen Systems Private Limited, Sankaran Avenue, Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in G.D.Notice No.5564 RS.III C/212-13 dated 19.7.2012 and quash this detention notice direct the respondent to release the goods.) ORDER 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 has submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.7.2012, 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 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 responden...
M/S. Kalpana Furniture Products (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned revision notice in TIN 33451422349/2008-09 dated 17/05/2012 and served on 25/06/2012 from the files of the first respondent herein quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file objections, in respect of the pre-revision notice, dated 17.5.2012, issued by the first respondent, within a specified period, and the first respondent may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a specified time limit. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for ...
C.L.i.M. Leather Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd Chennai Vs. the Executive Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to proceedings of the respondent in Na. Ka. No: 788/2011/T.A. and to quash the orders dated 20.01.2012 (two) passed by the respondent under the provision of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act.) 1. What is challenged in this writ petition are the two notices dated 20.01.2012 one issued under Sections 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 (M) and 134 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 and another issued under Sections 249, 250 and 313 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. By the said notices, petitioner was directed to stop work in his leather factory and submit a report to the concerned authorities failing which action would be initiated before the appropriate forum under the relevant provisions of the Act. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing on 06.02.2012, this Court g...
Tvl Sri Kannan Battery House, Rep. by Its Proprietor Thiru M. Mayaveer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of assessment order of the second respondent in TIN No.33444680633/2009-10 dated 28.6.2012 quash the same and to grant any other relief.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had pointed out that an appeal remedy was available to the petitioner, under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, to challenge the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 28.6.2012. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 3. Even though the petitioner has raised a number of grounds in the present writ petition, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter, i...
M/S. Kalpana Furniture Products (P) Ltd Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned Revision Order in TIN 33451422349/2007-2008 dated 13.6.2012 on the files of the respondent herein quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent does not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned revision order, dated 13.6.2012, relating to the assessment year 2007-08. 3. It has been stated that, in respect of the relevant year, the returns had been filed before the Commercial Tax Officer, Koyambedu Assessment Circle, the respondent herein, in the name of M/s.Keshav Chairs Private Limited, and therefore, it is not open to the respondent to pass the impugned revision order, dated 13.6.2012. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has not refuted the statements...
Pazhanesan Vs. Arjunan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in A.S.No.37 of 2003 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2003 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli in O.S.No.62 of 2001.) 1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in A.S.No.37 of 2003 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2003 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli in O.S.No.62 of 2001. 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 unsuccessful plaintiff, being the appellant in this second appeal file...
V. Jothi and Another Vs. the State Transport Authority Chepauk and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents and their subordinates to receive tax for Tamil Nadu for seven days or thirty days or ninety days as tendered voluntarily in advance by petitioner, for using vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-7250 in Tamil Nadu Roads.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the issues involved in this writ petition are covered by the order of this Court, dated 24.4.2007 made in W.P.Nos.15061 to 15063 of 2007, and the order , dated 27.04.2011, passed in W.P.No.11095 of 2011, wherein, this Court had directed the respondents therein to receive the tax, as and when it is voluntarily tendered, by the petitioners therein, in advance, for 7 days, 30 days or 9...
Tvl. Shree Mahalakshmi Distributors, Rep. by Its Partner K.J. Ramesh V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of Assessment Order of the second respondent TIN No.33674682010/2008-09 dated 25.6.2012, quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 25.6.2012, without considering the relevant provisions of law, including the Rule 10 (6)(b)(ii)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. Therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 25.6.2012, is liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that, inspite of the notice, dated 17.5.2012, having been issued, relating to the assessment year 2008-09, no objections had been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Based on the irregularities...