Chennai Court September 2012 Judgments
Petitioner Vs. Respondent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
K. Chandru, J. 1. This application is filed by the applicants seeking for an interim injunction restraining the defendants in any way making or publishing any further false, intimidatory and defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs. 2. The suit is for a claim of damages of Rs.50 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making or publishing any further false, intimidator or defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs. Pending the suit, this application came to be filed. In that application, on 20.04.2012 this court found that the respondents have not filed any counter. This court had recorded the oral statement of the counsel for the respondents that till 24.4.2012, the respondents will not publish the news item. Subsequently, the said order was extended till 11.6.2012. On notice, a counter affidavit, dated 24.4.2012 has been filed by the respondents. The applicants have filed a reply affidavit, dated...
Tag this Judgment!C.E.Sathyanarayana Reddi Vs. C.E.Sulochana and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
(APPLICATION under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 and Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment dated 19.8.2009 made in O.S.A.No.355 of 2008.) P. JYOTHIMANI, J. The appellant, against whom the judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (RPSJ) is a party to the judgment dated 19.8.2009, has filed the present review. 2. The short facts are that the first respondent, who is the mother of the review applicant, has filed a suit in O.S.No.8620 of 1996 on the file of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras praying for a mandatory injunction and to reconstruct the compound wall alleged to have been demolished by the applicant. In the said suit, it is not in dispute that various issues have been framed including the issue relating to the title and partition. Ultimately, the suit filed by the mother of the applicant, namely the first respondent, came to be decreed on 16.2.1999. It was against the said judgment and decree, the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Chinnakittusamy, Coimbatore Vs. the Competent Authority and Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to register the sale deed of the petitioner for conveying the properties of the petitioner which was covered under the attachment of the order made in G.O.Ms.No.40 Home (Courts-IIA) Department dated 13.01.2005 in view of the judgment rendered by the TNPID Special Court Coimbatore in C.C.No.28 of 2008 dated 26.11.2009.) 1. The property owned by the petitioner was attached by the competent authority by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "TNPID Act"). 2. According to the petitioner, only a provisional attachment was made. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges by the Special Court in C.C.No.28 of 2008. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18462 of 2010 with a prayer to release the property from attachment. The writ petiti...
Tag this Judgment!N. Saravanan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
(Prayers: W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2011 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 communication in Letter No.8544/A2/2010-2, dated 23.07.2010 on the file of the respondent No.1 and the subsequent communication in Ref.No.P2/30313/2007 dated 09.08.2010 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to include the petitioner in the list of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer for the year 2004 with all service benefits retrospectively. W.P.(MD)No.4877 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Rule 6(d) of the Tamil Nadu Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules as inapplicable to the candidates directly recruited as Assistants in the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, like the petitioner, while bein...
Tag this Judgment!G. Uvaraj Vs. the Joint Director and Higher Secondary Education and Ot ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
(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 relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1109/A3/2012 dated 27.07.2012 of the third respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to regularize the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment i.e. 30.10.2008 with all arrears of salary along with all monetary and attendary benefits.) 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Na.Ka.No.1109/A3/2012 dated 27.07.2012. 2. A vacancy of Post Graduate Assistant (English) arose in the Sengunthar Higher Secondary School,, Turaiyur on 17.07.2008. In pursuance to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post. The petitioner was selected, and appointed, to the post of P.G.Assistant (English), with a direction to join on or before 30.10.2008. It is submitted, that the sanction was also granted by the Chief Ed...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
(Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 17.06.2005 passed in S.C.No.613 of 2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvalloor.) The appellant herein is the accused in S.C.No.613 of 2003 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvalloor and he stands convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and he was also sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., and both the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant herein had preferred this criminal appeal. 2.The case of t...
Tag this Judgment!Women and Children Foundation Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director Dr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the judgment dated 7.12.2010 in R.C.A.No.299 of 2009 on the file of the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai (Appellate Authority) confirming the order dated 9.7.2009 in R.C.O.P.No.1269 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller (XVI Judge), Small Causes Court, Chennai.) 1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. 2. Respondent/landlord filed the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default and for own occupation. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the revision petitioner/tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and the requirement of the landlord is also bona fide and ordered eviction. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default and rejected the claim of the landlord for owner's occupation. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 3. It is submitted by Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Chermaand#8217;s Exquisite Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
1. The appellants have filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein conversion of their shipping bill from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme is denied. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a shipping bill on 2.7.2009 for export of readymade garments under advance licence cum duty drawback scheme. Thereafter, they moved an application for conversion of the part of the consignment under drawback scheme to advance licence scheme on 15.9.2009. As the appellants were given the benefit of drawback scheme before their filing of the request on 15.9.2009 and considering the fact that the appellants are not entitled for benefit of conversion as per Board’s Circular No.4/04-Cus. dt. 16.1.2004, their request for conversion from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme was denied. Against the said order, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides. On behalf of the appellants, Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate appears and su...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vijaya and Another Vs. K. Karthikeyan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order of award dated 25.05.2011 passed in MCOP No.79 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Thanjavur at Kumbakonam.) 1. The first appellant is the wife and the second appellant is the mother of the deceased, who filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation, in respect of the death of the deceased-Govindarajan. The deceased, aged about 58 years, retired as Postal Assistant and doing business in real estate earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, died in an accident that took place on 04.11.2008. When he was driving a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-49-Z-9074, he was hit by a van bearing Registration No.TN-49-V-3364 and he died on the spot. Alleging loss of dependency and loss of love and affection, the claimants filed a claim petition. 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.85,000/- as compensation with ...
Tag this Judgment!S.Kuppusamy and Another Vs. Special Tahsildar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
(Appeal filed as against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in LAOP No.732 of 2000.) This appeal is focussed at the instance of the claimants as against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in LAOP No.732 of 2000. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, 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 appeal would run thus: a] The Land Acquisition Officer issued Notification dated 26.07.1999 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the lands in Survey No.283/24-A 0.60.0 ares Periyakurichi Village, Vridhachalam Taluk. The notice relating to land acquisition was sent only to Rangasamy by taking into account his name found in the revenue records. On coming to know of the proceedings, the fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »