Chennai Court September 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. Rajaram Vs. the Deputy Director, Department of Georgraphy and Minin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
(PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the Tractor with compressor bearing Registration No.TN-33 U-7742 which was seized on 09.08.2012 to the petitioner, which is now under the custody of the third respondent.)ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.R.Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. In view of the averments made by the petitioner and taking into consideration, the relief prayed for by the petitioner and since, similar orders have been passed by this Court, the third respondent is directed to release the vehicle, namely Tractor with compressor, bearing Registration No.TN-33 U-7742, to the petitioner, forthwith, on his fulfilling the following conditions:- "(i) The petitioner shall establish the ownership of the vehicle, by producing the necessary documents and the certificates, befo...
M. Muthuswamy Vs. P. Kandasamy, Principal, Pachaiyappan College and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
(Prayer: This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for violating the order passed by this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.15798 of 2007 dated 27.4.2007.) 1. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner to punish the respondents for violating the interim order passed by this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.15798 of 2007 dated 27.4.2007. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner and four others. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Lecturer in Micro-Biology Department in Pachaiyappa's College by order dated 10.7.1996 and in spite of serving for over 17 years, his services were not regularised. On 19.3.2012, petitioner's service was discontinued due to closure of the course. It is alleged in the affidavit that the said order is passed wilfully disobeying the interim order passed by this Court on 27.4.2007. 3. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that the Management...
Aalama Wood Works, Represented by Its Proprietor A. Paulraj Vs. the Ju ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the notice by the first respondent vide “TAMIL” dated 04.09.2012 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to issue licence for Aalama Wood Works at 36/13, Ramapuram, Manikatti Pottal, Kanyakumari District.) 1. This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the notice by the first respondent vide “TAMIL” dated 04.09.2012 and consequently, direct the second respondent to issue licence for Aalama Wood Works at 36/13, Ramapuram, Manikatti Pottal, Kanyakumari District. 2. Heard Mr.C.T.Perumal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.U.Ramanathan, learned Counsel who takes notice for the first respondent, Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India who takes notice for the second respondent, Mr.M.Alagathevan, learned Special ...
M/S. Prachi Silks and Another Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent herein to release 50 Bales i.e. 3096.29 Kgs and 100 cartons weighing 3011.13 of Mulberry Silks covered under Bills of Entry Nos.461151 and 461152 both dated 19.03.2010 respectively, under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, by permitting substitution of the Petitioner name in the Bill of Entry above referred and other import documents.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. No appearance for the second respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for release of the goods in question, which is the Mulberry Silk Yarn, covered under the bills of entry Nos.461151 and 46...
Quibus Resources India Private Limited Rep.by Its Director Vs. Dr. R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.6713 of 2010.) 1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.6713 of 2010, this appeal is focussed. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial court. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal, would run thus: a] The appellant herein/the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: To pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff as follows: - directing the defendants to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs only) towards loss and damages, together with future inter...
M. Ramasamy Vs. Mrs. Pappathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 27.6.2012, passed in I.A.No.651 of 2012, in O.S.No.380 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal.) 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.380 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal, is the revision petitioner herein. He filed the suit for partition, stating that the properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and therefore, he is entitled to 48/210 share. In the plaint, the plaintiff has challenged the settlement deed, dated 25.10.1973, executed by his father in favour of one Mani @ Balasubramaniyan, son of defendants 5 and 6, contending that the settlement deed, is not a valid one, as the father has no right to execute the settlement deed in respect of the ancestral properties. When the trial has commenced, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Section 10 C.P.C., to stay t...
Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Chennai Vs. the State of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
In view of the orders passed in W.P.Nos. 22678 to 22683 of 2012, this writ petition stands closed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the issues which had been raised in the said writ petition, before the appropriate authority, while filing its reply to the impugned notice issued to it, relating to the payment of tax and penalty, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. No costs....
Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, Represented by Its Dean, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent herein made in TIN/33570887231/2011-12 dated 27.04.2012 and QUASH the same and consequently restraining the 3rd Respondent herein from levying and collecting taxes on rendering diagnostic services on X-Ray films, CT films, MRI films and medical gases for impatient treatments and other allied medical services to the patients at the petitioner's medical college hospital.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandiyan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of the petitioner Medical college hospital, under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films and supply of medical gases and implants, which are used durin...
R. Pandurangan Vs. R. Munusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: Second Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 5.11.2004 passed by the Sub Judge, Thiruppathur, in A.S.No.28 of 2004 allowing the appeal against the judgement and decree dated 30.4.2004 passed by the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, in O.S.No.40 of 2003.) 1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant in the suit as against the judgement and decree dated 5.11.2004 passed by the Sub Judge, Thiruppathur, in A.S.No.28 of 2004 allowing the appeal against the judgement and decree dated 30.4.2004 passed by the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, in O.S.No.40 of 2003, which was one for permanent injunction. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thu...
Winergy Drive Systems India Pvt Ltd, Kanchipuram Vs. Assistant Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the case from the file of the respondent herein, quash the impugned order of the respondent in CST801060/2009-10 dated 31.7.2012 served on 13.8.2012, direct the respondent to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to produce the relevant documents including the export documents and statutory forms available with the petitioner.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. It had been stated that the respondent had issued a pre-assessment notice, dated 12.11.2010, relating to the assessment year 2009-2010. A reply, dated 30.11.2010, had been submitted by the petitioner, to the pre-assessment notice issued by the respondent, on 12.11.2010. Eventhough, the petitioner had requested for personal hearing to be given, the respondent had passed the impugned assess...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »