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.
The Marketing Superintendent, Regulated Market, Erode Market Committee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order passed in S.T.C.No.561 of 2010, dated 12.04.2012 by the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, thereby acquitting the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.) 1. The respondents herein are the accused in S.T.C.No.561 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, and a complaint was filed against them by the Marketing Superintendent, Erode Market Committee, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce (Regulation), Agricultural Department, Kodumudi, for contravening the provision of Section 24(1) and 24(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and punishable under Section 48 of the Act. The learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused on the ground that at the time of filing the complaint, a Special Order required as per Section 58(2) of the Act was not obtained by the complainant and the co...
K.P.S. Selvaraaj Vs. Selvaraaj Tex Private Limited and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Company Appeal filed under section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 to set aside the order of the Company Law Board, Chennai Bench dated 29.02.2012 made in C.P.No.18 of 2012.) 1. The present Company Appeal has been filed against the order of the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai made in C.P.No.18 of 2012 passed in the attendance cum order sheet of the hearing of the Chennai Bench of the Company Law Board held on 29.02.2012 at 2.30 p.m stated to be decided on 13.03.2012. 2. K.P.Selvaraaj, who figures as respondent No.2 in the company petition before the Company Law Board, is the appellant herein. Selvaraaj Tex Private Limited, which figures as respondent No.1 in the company petition before the Company Law Board is the first respondent herein. K.P.S.Manoharan, K.P.S.Sivakumar, K.P.S.Muniswaran, E.Muniswaran and Mrs.M.Muthumari, the petitioners in the company petition before the Company Law Board, are the respondents 2 to 6 in the present Company Appeal. Indir...
K. Durai, Tiruvallur and Another Vs. the District Manager, Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue BAR LICENSE for the TASMAC SHOP No.9127 to the petitioner.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel 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 respondent had submitted that the bar licence relating to the TASMAC Shop No.9127 would be given to the petitioner, within a period of 15 days from today. 3. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, since no further orders are necessary, the writ petition stands closed. No cost. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is also closed....
Saroja Ammal and Another Vs. Valliammal
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.1998 and made in A.S.No.16/1997 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 29.11.1996 made in O.S.No.298/1981, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai.) 1. The appellants/defendants have filed this Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.1998 made in A.S.No.16/1997, on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 29.11.1996, made in O.S.No.298/1981, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Madurai. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and past damages of Rs.50/- per month from 12.12.1979 and also future damages at the rate of Rs.50/- per month. Briefly, the case of the respondent/plaintiff is that she purchased the suit property and other properties from one Ayyalu Naid...
M/S. K. Rajendran and Co, Namakkal and Another Vs. the Assistant Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent in TNGST No. 3161690/ 2006-2007 (upto 31.12.2006) and quash the impugned order dt 30.3.2012 as being passed without jurisdiction and authority of law and also against the principles of natural justice and to further direct the respondent to complete the assessment in accordance with section 87-A of the TNVAT Act 2006 which was given effect to from 18th June 2008 by section 4 of the Amendment Act No.49/2008) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. 2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the respondent, dated 30.03.2012, is arbitrary and illegal, as it is contrary to Section 87-A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Since, the period in question is from 01.04.2006 to 31.12.2006, a self assessment order ought to hav...
R. Panneer Selvam Vs. the Assistant Director of Mines and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-05-AJ-7310 and which was seized on 14.7.2012 by the first respondent and handed over to the 2nd respondent) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 05 AJ 7310, seized on 14.7.2012. 3. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, in similar matters, the Second respondent is directed to release the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 05 AJ 7310, 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 Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar (Adw), Tindivanam Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act (Act 31/78) read with Section 100 of C.P.C.,against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2003 made in L.A.C.M.A.No.18/99 on the file of Principal Sub Corut, Tindivanam, modifying the award dated 27.05.1999 made in Award No.2/1999-2000 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Tindivanam.) R.SUBBIAH, J., 1. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.150/- per cent to Rs.1,000/- per cent i.e.Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for the lands acquired in Vempoondi Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District with a view to provide house sites to 175 Adi-Dradiva families, Government preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts are as follows: Lands measuring to an extent of 3.28 Hectares in S.Nos.92/3 (1.10.0 Hectares), 92/4 (0.54.0 Hectares), 92/6 (0.81.0 Hectares), 92/7 (0.49/0 Hectares), 93/10-B (0.04.5 Hectares), 93/11-B (0.04.5 Hectares), 93/12-B(0.10.0 Hectares) and 94/8-B2 (0.15.0 H...
G. Rajendran and Others Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, State Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned temporarily suspension order proceeding No.PandE2(1)/4297/2012 dated 16.8.2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent permitting the petitioner to run the business at TVL.Hotel Chaithanya Inn, No.2/764, Periyapalayam Road, Sai Krupanagar, Ponnery Town, Tiruvallur District.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of this writ petition, it had been submitted, on behalf of the respondents, that the impugned order, suspending the licence issued in favour of the petitioner, may be set aside. However, the petitioner may be directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent concerned, pursuant to the notice issued to him, as per the procedures prescribed, under ...
Hari Enterprises Vs. the Check Post Officer Puzhal Check Post (Out)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings G.D.No.2978/2011-12 dated 13.12.2011 and quash this detention order direct the respondent to release the goods detained in this goods detention notice dated 13.12.2011.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate for Taxes, 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 the entire tax and compounding fee demanded by the respondent, as per the impugned proceedings, dated 13.12.2011, had been paid. 3 The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has not refuted the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In such circumstances, as no further orders are necessary, the writ petition stand...
Hotel Srinivas Rep. by Its Manager K. Rajesh and Others Vs. the State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 17.8.2012 made in Proc.No.PandE2(1)/4297/2012 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of this writ petition, it had been submitted, on behalf of the respondents, that the impugned order, suspending the licence issued in favour of the petitioner, may be set aside. However, the petitioner may be directed to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the respondent concerned, pursuant to the notice issued to him, as per the procedures prescribed, under Rule 22(1) of The Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981. 3. It had been further submitted that the respondent concerned would consider the objections filed by the petitioner, if any, and pass approp...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »