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.
M/S. Ideal Dry Mixes (India) Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Manager Vs. the Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 herein to consider the representation dated 8.6.2012 sent by the petitioner to permit the petitioner for the transportation of goods send by the petitioner to its customers in a lawful manner.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 8.6.2012, and to permit the petitioner to transport the goods sent by the petitioner to its customer, in a lawful manner. However, on a perusal of the representation of the petitioner, dated 8.6.2012, it has been prayed that the petitioner may be left out of the case, in Crime No.204/2012, filed against it for the o...
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 16.9.2004 made in MCOP.No.1145/2002 by the learned Additional Sub Judge (MACT) Cuddalore.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 16.9.2004 made in MCOP.No.1145/2002 by the learned Additional Sub Judge (MACT) Cuddalore, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,03,200/- as total compensation with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimants, who are the mother, brother and sister of the deceased S.Krishnamurthy, who died in the motor accident that had occurred on 13.6.2002. 2. The deceased suffered fatal injuries in the accident that had occurred on 13.6.2002 at about 7.50 p.m. being hit by the bus belonging to the Appellant Transport Corporation. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, awarded compensation as ...
The National Insurance Company Limited Pudukottai Vs. Shaik Anwar Bash ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 28.9.2005 made in MCOP.No.1029/2002 by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-V) (MACT) Coimbatore.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited against the Judgement and Decree dated 28.9.2005 made in MCOP.No.1029/2002 by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-V) (MACT) Coimbatore, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,73,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9 per cent p.a. to the claimants/the Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who lost their unmarried daughter in the motor accident that had occurred on 25.8.2001. 2. The accident dated 25.8.2001 resulted in the death of the deceased S.Ashraaf Sultana, who was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident. The deceased was working as a Fashion Designer in M/s.Arora Group of Companies and was earning Rs.5500/- p.m. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident had occurred only due to the ra...
M/S. 5 Star Recreation Club Rep by Its Secretary, Virudhunagar Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Respondent dated 17.08.2012 made in proceedings Proc.No.PandE2(1)/4297/2012 and quash the said order of the Respondent.) 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 it, 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 appropriate orders thereon, based on the enquiry, on merits an...
Branch Manager, K.P.N. Speed Parcel Service Private Limited Vs. Y. Ala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in C.C.No.15 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur and quash the same.) 1. The petitioner is Accused No.2 in C.C.No.15 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur and he has come forward with the present petition to quash the proceedings as against him. 2. The facts of the case is: The respondent is the complainant in this case. He instituted the prosecution by way of private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against three persons including the petitioner. The petitioner is the Branch Manager of the said company at Tiruppur. The first Accused is a company known as K.P.N. Speed Parcel Service Private Limited, Salem. The second Accused is the Branch Manager of the company at Tirupur. The third Accused is an Auto driver of the first Accused company. The first Accused is operating parcel service through transport ...
J. Usman Khan, Chennai Vs. the Commissioner Corporation of Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, Declaring that the proceedings made in G.R.S.CO11/00250 dated 01.03.1999 and the earlier and subsequent proceedings in any manner in respect of claim for the Property Tax by erroneously calculating for the larger extent of area not actually available and by adopting extraneous yardstick different from the one adopted in respect of adjoining/adjacent and similar nature of buildings of the same locality as null and void illegal and invalid along with all connected proceedings and consequently directing the Respondents particularly the first and third Respondents to assess the property tax afresh in respect of property bearing Door No.59 Dr.Ambedkar Nagar 2nd Street CB Road Chennai-21 comprised in R.S.No.1841 of Korukkupet Village, admeasuring to an extent of 450 square feet + 450 (square feet) ground floor and first floor respectively) fairly, reason...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayers: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals No.101 and 124 of 2010 filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common award and decree dated 30.06.2009 made in MCOP.No.3479 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes), Chennai. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.398 of 2011 filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common award and decree dated 30.06.2009 made in MCOP.No.2597 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) Common Judgment R.SUBBIAH, J., 1. C.M.A.Nos.101 and 124 of 2010 and C.M.A.No.398 of 2011 arise out of a common award (30.06.2009) passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, in M.C.O.P.Nos. 3479 and 2597 of 2000 respectively along with other three claim petitions, namely, M.C.O.P.Nos.4536, 4582 of 2000 and 5010 of 2003. C.M.A.No.101 of 2010 has been filed by Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation a...
K. Sunil Kumar Vs. the Sub-registrar, Office Kollamcode Sub-registrar, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to register the document presented for registration in September 2011 pending in Serial No.P56/2011 within a time fixed by this Court.) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent / Sub-Registrar, Kollamcode, to register the document presented for registration in September-2011 pending in Serial No.P56/2011 within a time frame fixed by this Court. 2. When the writ petition came up on 27.04.2012, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions as to why the document presented by the petitioner has not been registered. 3. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, dated (Nil) June, 2012. 4. Subsequently, an impleading petition in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2012 has been filed by one Jothi Santhosh Kumar, W/o.Santhosh Kumar, seeking to ...
Appadurai and Another Vs. Selvan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Second Appeal against the judgement and decree dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Sub Court, Ariyalur, in A.S.No.22 of 1999 reversing the judgement and decree dated 24.6.1999 passed by the District Munsif ourt, Jeyankondam, in O.S.No.346 of 1996.) 1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendants in the suit as against the judgement and decree dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Sub Court, Ariyalur, in A.S.No.22 of 1999 reversing the judgement and decree dated 24.6.1999 passed by the District Munsif Court, Jeyankondam, in O.S.No.346 of 1996, which was one for declaration and for 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. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus: (i) The respondent herein, who happened to be the plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of an extent o...
P. Harikrishnan Vs. the Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Cha ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent dated 20/7/2012 purporting to break open the petitioner's temple unlawfully, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents herein, their men, agents or any officials under their instructions from in any manner taking forcible possession of the Management and Administration in the petitioner temple without recourse to Sec.101 of HR and CE Act.) 1. The petitioner claims to be a Managing Trustee of Arulmighu Easwari Bathrakaliamman temple Neendakarai 'B' village, Esanthangu, Muttom Post, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20/7/2012 passed by the second respondent/fit person-cum-Executive Officer wherein by which he was purported to break open the petitioner's temple unlawfully and consequently ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »