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.
Tvl. Winergy Drive Systems India Pvt Ltd, Kanchipuram Vs. Assistant Co ...
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 CST801060/2008-09 dated 31.7.2012 served on 13.8.2012, direct the respondent to give an opportunity to show cause against the tax demanded, accept the 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. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the pre-assessment notice, dated 08.03.2010, issued by the respondent, relating to the assessment year 2009-2010, deals only with the classification for the taxable turnover relating to the sales against C-Forms. However, while the impugned assessment order had been passed, on 31.07.2012, the respondent had also dealt with the issues relating to 'Direct Expo...
P. Nallasamy, Erode District and Another Vs. the Regional Transport Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Sae.Mu.Aa.No. 10152/A2/2011 dated 29.8.2011 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 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 impugned order of the respondent, dated 29.8.2011, is set aside and if the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent to put forth his case, based on the notice issued to him on 4.5.2010 and 28.7.2011 and if the respondent is directed to consider the claims made by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order thereon, as per law. 3. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing ...
V. Ramalingam Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Pri ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on 08.10.2007 within a time frame fixed by this Court.) 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on 08.10.2007 within a time frame fixed by this Court. 2. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 3. By consent, the writ petitions itself are taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are the contesting parties. The third respondent - President of Kovil P...
The Management of M/s. R.S.L. 'B' Tannery, Vellore District Vs. the Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Appellant/Petitioner has focussed the instant Writ Appeal as against the order dated 23.07.2008 in W.P.No.2296 of 2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the orders in W.P.No.2296 of 2008 on 23.07.2008, (filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner), has, among other things, observed that in the case on hand, the Labour Court (1st Respondent) has rightly gone into the question of examining the claims of workmen under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, they while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33C (2)of the Act etc. and has rendered a finding that the industrial establishments has in fact been closed and accordingly, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has concluded the amount due to the workmen and ordered the management to pay the same and consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition without costs. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner, the Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the W...
K. Vijabala Vs. the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of transfer passed by the 1st respondent in her proceeding vide Ref. Na.Ka.No.63128/C3/E1/2009 dated 16.07.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to retain her as B.T. Assistant Teacher (Physical Science) in Government Higher Secondary School, Vysarpadi, Chennai.) 1. There are four respondents in this writ petition. So far as the 4th respondent is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed this writ petition as the 4th respondent is an unnecessary party to the issues involved in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed in respect of the 4th respondent as per the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is working as a B.T. Assistant in Science subject at Government Higher Secondary School, M.K.B.Nag...
C. Vedachalam Vs. B. Arunthathi Ammal (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is focussed as against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.61 of 2005 dated 03.01.2006 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Chengleput, reversing the decree and judgment passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram dismissing the suit in O.S.No.101 of 1998 dated 01.04.2005.) 1. This Second appeal is focussed by the original defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2006 passed in A.S.No.61 of 2005 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengleput, reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram dated 01.04.2005 in O.S.No.101 of 1998. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder 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 plaintiff filed the suit seeking the fol...
R. Ramasamy Vs. the Managing Director Jeeva Transport Corporation Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 10.10.2002 made in MCOP.No.346/1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT) Tirupattur.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 10.10.2002 made in MCOP.No.346/1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT) Tirupattur, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the respective claim petitions filed by the owner of the lorry, claiming compensation for the damages caused to the lorry and the Respondent Transport Corporation, holding that both the drivers of the lorry and the bus belonging to the Respondent Transport Corporation were responsible equally in causing the accident. 2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 24.3.1994, at about 3.40 p.m., when the lorry owned by the Appellant/claimant was proceeding from Vaniyambadi towards Tiruppattur, the bus belonging to the Respondent Transport Corporation coming from Tiruppattur towards Vaniambadi, near Salai...
V. Gurunathan and Others Vs. the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to first consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistants and only thereafter resort to direct recruitment in the event ofvacancies being available after such promotion.) 1. The petitioners are presently working as Junior Assistants in Thanjavur, Nagapattinam and Kancheepurm regionsof the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.Originally, they were all appointed as seasonal employees about 20-25 years ago. Seasonal Employees are those employees who work during the harvest season of paddy for the purpose of procurement, on consolidated pay. During the off-season, namely, non-procurement season, they will not be in employment. As per the Employees' Service Regulations of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, they were all absorbed as Junior Assistants. Admittedly, as of now, they do not have 3 years experience as Junior Assistants. 2...
Pappannan and Others Vs. Kolandasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(Prayer: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam in A.S.No.19 of 2004 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam in O.S.No.238 of 1998.) 1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendants, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam in A.S.No.19 of 2004 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam in O.S.No.238 of 1998. 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. A summation and summarisation of the facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: a] The respondent-Kolandasamy herein, who happened to be the plaintiff, filed...
P. Kumarasamy Vs. the District Collector, Erode District and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to lay or form the drainage canal little bit away from the petitioner's agricultural lands and Wells situated in the survey numbers 237/4, 239/1, 239/2 in a total extent of 2 acres in punjai Kolanalli Village, Erode District.) 1. Heard Mr.A.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to lay or form the drainage canal little bit away from the petitioner's agricultural lands and Wells situated in the survey numbers 237/4, 239/1, 239/2 in a total extent of 2 acres in punjai Kolanalli Village, Erode District. 3. According to the petitioner, he is having agricultural lands along with residential house with two big Wells utilised for the drinking and irrigation purposes to do the agricultural operations...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »