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.
K. Rajkumar and Another Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings Number Na. Ka. No. 2145/2006/H1 dated 9.7.2008 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable being violative of principles of natural justice and thereby direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post commensurate with his qualification consequent on the death of his father Late. Kristhumani on 24.4.2003 while serving as Sanitary Worker in the 3rd respondent Municipality.) 1. The first petitioner's father was appointed as Sanitary Worker on daily wage basis in the Thiruvallur Municipality, along with 19 other daily wage workers, by an order dated 16.10.1992. He was brought to consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- on 20.12.2000 by the proceedings of the third respondent. 2. These 19 workers, who joined a...
M/S.Carborandum Universal Limited Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench dated 17.08.2005 made in ITA No.568/(Mds)/01.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. The following are the substantial questions of law raised in this Tax Case relating to the assessment year 1997-98: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that scrap sales should be included in the total turnover while computing deduction under Section 80HHC? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that 90% of gross interest without deducting expenses incurred in earning the interest income has to be excluded from the business profits while computing deduction under Section 80HHC? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that non-compete fee paid to Sri.U.Mohan Rao was capital expenditure without appreciating that such ex...
Consim Info Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Google India Pvt. Ltd., and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
(Prayer: Original Second Appeals filed against the common order dated 30.09.2010 made in O.A.Nos.977 and 978 in C.S.No.832 of 2009 on the Original Side of this Court.) M. Duraiswamy, J. 1. The appellant in both the appeals is the plaintiff in the suit in C.S.No.832 of 2009 on the file of this Court. OSA No.406 of 2010 arises against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in OA No.977 of 2009 in C.S.No.832 of 2009 and the OSA No.407 of 2010 arises against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.A.No.978 of 2009 in OS No.832 of 2009. 2. The respondents are the defendants in the Suit. The appellant filed the suit in C.S.No.832 of 2009 for the following reliefs;- a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, by themselves, their directors, partners, men, servants, agent, broadcasters, representatives, advertisers, franchisees, licensees and/or all other persons acting on their behalf from in any manner infringing and/or enabling others to infringe plai...
M. Patturajan Vs. Rajeeranjan, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation Dis ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent for the wilful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.896 of 2012, dated 08.12.2012.) 1. Heard Mr.Patturajan, the petitioner appearing party-in-person and Ms.Srimathi learned Standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Generation Distribution and Corporation Limited. 2. This contempt petition arose out of the orders passed by this Court in W.P(MD).No.896 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012. In that Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to settle his professional bills and consequently to pay a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- towards his legal fees. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that he has been engaged as a Special Counsel by the respondent Corporation and even after successfully completing the cases, when he claimed the bill, the respondents have not settled the bill. Hence, this Contempt Petition. 4. When the matter came up on 08.02.2012, this Court directed the Chairma...
Vijayalakshmi Shanmugam Vs. the Chief Justice, Madras High Court, Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, Certiorari or quo warranto, propounding the appointment of the third respondent Shri.Ragupathi, by gazette notification dated 28.3.12 as President of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as being ultra vires to proviso to Sections 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Regulation 5 of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides being a repeat violation of Article 141 vis--vis para 163(IV) and (V) of the Supreme Court diktat in re Kannadasan, (2009) 7 SCC 1.) N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the appointment of the third respondent as the President of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, on the ground that the said appointment is ultra vires to proviso to Section 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 198...
M/S. R.M. Traders, Represented by Its Proprietor P. Raja Mohamed Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
(Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to permit clearance of the goods immediately that stands suspended by letter dated 29.06.2012 in F.No.S.Misc.102/2012 SIIB.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the clearance of the Mobile phones in question had been suspended, as there were certain complaints relating to the infringement of the Intellectual Property Rights of the right holder, namely, Ms.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericcson (PUBL), Sweden. However, on verification it had been found that there is no Infringement of Intellectual property rights as alleged by M/s. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericcson (PUBL), Sweden. Therefore, necessary directions had been issued to the authorities concerned, to release the goods in questi...
Mohamed Saleem Vs. T.S.M. Haja Mohedeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
(Prayer: The suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. read with Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules.) 1. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a direction directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by conveying half of the undivided share in house and ground premises bearing new door No.42 and 44, Old No.24 and 25, Madley Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17 comprised in Pymash No.77/2, R.S.No.158/4, T.S.No.5661 measuring an extent of 2 grounds and 1482 sq.ft (6282 sq.ft) morefully described in the schedule hereunder within the time to be specified by this Hon'ble Court after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-, in default of compliance of the said direction by the defendant within the specified time, the Hon'ble Court shall execute the deed of sale by and through an officer of this Hon'ble Court deputed therefor or in the alternative, after depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- by the plaintiff on and to ...
D. Srinivasan Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Its Secretary, Highways De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their agents, subordinates and men from evicting the petitioner from peaceful possession of his property in Survey No.62/3 in No.89, Veppampattu Village, Thiruvallur District without adhering to the due process of law by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2012.) 1. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their agents, subordinates and men from evicting him from peaceful possession of his property in Survey No.62/3 in No.89, Veppampattu Village, Thiruvallur District without adhering to the due process of law by considering his representation dated 26.08.2012. 3. According to the petitioner, he is residing with his family in Dunlop ...
Radha Krishnan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Ceratiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised in the impugned notification dated 19.7.2012 issued to by the 2nd respondent and to quash in so far as it relates to fixation of upper age limit and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to fix the upper age limit at 35 years for open category 40 years for BC/MBC 45 for SC/SCA/ST candidates into fill up the existing notified vacancies 1. The petitioners have registered their name in the Employment Exchange for the post of Conductor. 2. The Third respondent-Corporation issued notification dated 19.7.2012 about the recruitment of Conductor and fixing the upper age limit for various categories as follows:- (i) O.C. - 30 years (ii) B.C./M.B.C. - 35 years (iii) SC/SC/ST - 40 years 3. The petitioners have sought to question the aforesaid notification. They have also sought for a direction to the respondents to fix the upper age lim...
K. Ravi, Salem District Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Salem Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 20.07.2012 in Se. Mu.Aanai.No. E1-25376-2012 passed by the Respondent quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to return the Petitioner forthwith his driving licence without any endorsement and costs.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order suspending the licence of the petitioner, had been passed by the respondent without giving an opportunity of being heard. He had further submitted that the impugned order had been passed by the respondent without a proper show cause notice having been issued to the petitioner. The show cause notice, which had been issued to the petitioner, does not show the specific p...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »