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.
Dr. Harihar Narasimha Iyer and Others Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in the F.I.R. No.10 of 2012 on the file of the W19-All Women Police Station, Adayar, Chennai-20 and quash the same.) ORDER The first petitioner is the husband of the second Respondent/Defacto Complainant, petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner and petitioners 4 and 5 are the sisters of the first petitioner. They are arrayed as Accused No. 1 to 5 in FIR No.10 of 2012 on the file of the All Women Adayar Police Station, Chennai-20 for the alleged offence under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. They have come forward with this petition seeking to quash the FIR No.10 of 2012 on the file of the first Respondent. 2. The allegations in the complaint are:- On 2nd June, 2010, the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent took place at Chennai. Right from the date of marriage, the husband has forced the wife to do unpleasant sexual acts. The day after the wedding there were...
M/S. Premier Systems and Peripherals Rep by Its Proprietor Vs. the Dep ...
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 Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent herein in O.R.No.11663/2012-13 dated 19.07.2012, quash the same as illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and further direct the second respondent to allow the petitioner to adjust the petitioner's payment of advance tax of Rs.42,500/-, paid before the first respondent vide Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Demand Draft No.158475 dated 16.07.2012, in their regular monthly returns and payment of taxes before the second respondent.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2.At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing on behalf of the respondents had pointed out that it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings...
Capt. N.R. Phatak Vs. B.S. AmsuddhIn and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decretal order dated 03.07.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.1531 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) 1. The appellant/vehicle owner challenges the award of the Claims Tribunal on several grounds. 2. The claimants' son Mansoor, lost his life in a road accident. His parents were granted a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The break-up figure is as under:- Sl.No.HeadAmount in Rs.1Loss of dependency2250002Loss of love and affection (Rs.10,000 x 2)200003Cremation expenses5000Total2500003. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that at the time of accident the deceased boy, all of a sudden, crossed the road and caused the accident. The Tribunal had also not deducted 1/3 from the notional income and further the interest awarded @ 9% p.a. is also excessive. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that in no...
Rv. Balasubramaniam Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (imports) and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Public Notice No.170/2012 dated 26.7.2012 and also the subsequent circular issued by the 2nd respondent under ref C9/3/2012-CHA dated 28.8.2012, which is contrary to the Public Notice of the First Respondent and quash the same as illegal and invalid and consequently direct the respondents to conduct the examination afresh in accordance with the Regulation 8 specified under CHALR 2004.) 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, on instructions, that the petitioner would be allowed to appear in the written examination to be conducted by the respondents, under Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations...
Tamilselvan Vs. the Collector, Kancheepuram District and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Ceratiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of 2nd respondent vide NA.KA.No.34275/2011/S5 dated 19.01.2012, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to issue the ration card to the petitioner.) 1. The petitioner is residing at No.2/12, N.G.O. Colony, Sirperumbudur Town and Taluk, Kancheepruam District. The house at No.2/12, N.G.O. Colony, referred to above, belongs to his father. He was residing with his father viz., Thanthoni, his mother viz., Mariammal, his younger brother viz., Manivannan and his younger sister viz., Uma Maheswari. 2. The ration Card issued by the third respondent for the joint family for the period 2005-2009 bears five members, viz., Thanthoni, Mariammal, Tamilselvan (petitioner), Manivannan and Uma Maheswari. 3. The petitioner got married on 29.04.2007 with one Subathradevi, D/o. Swaminathan. He got a certifica...
G. Anbu Murugan Others Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Trichirapp ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
(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 relating to the final notice in Na.Ka.No.A1/11091/09/Sree dated 29.12.2011 issued by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to comply with the request made by the petitioner in the representation dated 04.08.2011 so as to enable to make the petitioner to comply with the execution of lease agreement on Rs.20/- Non-Judicial stamp papers and to commence the tenancy. 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 relating to the final notice in Na.Ka.No.A1/11091/09/Sree dated 29.12.2011 issued by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to comply with the request made by the petitioner in the representation dated 04.08...
M. Edison Vs. the District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to shift the Tasmac shop No.1066 situated at North Main Road, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District to another place in the light of petitioner's representations dated 05.02.2012.) 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to shift the TASMAC shop No.1066 situated at North Main Road, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District to another place in the light of the petitioner's representation dated 05.02.2012. 2. In the representation of the petitioner addressed to the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, the petitioner has stated that he is living at Door No.264A, North Main Road, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, and the TASMAC Shop No.1066 was opened in their street. Even before opening the said shop, objecting that the said shop may cause hindrance and lack of safety, the petitioner and one Susairaj ma...
P.R. Shantharam Vs. the Executive Director, Corporation Bank and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
(Prayer: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order bearing Ref.No.PAD/IRW/DISC/368/2004 of the first respondent dated 15.05.2004 confirming the order of the second respondent in Ref.No.PAD/IRW/DISC/1374/2003 dated 29.8.2003 with consequential prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages and all other consequential benefits.) 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. General Manager, and also that of Executive Director of Corporation Bank in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the Corporation Bank in the year 1974 and his performance was considered good as he was awarded productivity award for three years, Star performe...
M.P. Premkumar Vs. the Deputy Commissioner Civil Supplies and Consumer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in A3/30349/2011 dated 19.12.2011 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the first and second respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.) 1. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, by an order of the second respondent, dated 15.09.2011. Thereafter, by an order dated 01.12.2011, the petitioner was allotted as a Residential Office Assistant in the house of the third respondent, the Head of the Department of the Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection and the petitioner was directed to join duty immediately. The written order was served on the petitioner on 5.12.2011 and he reported for duty on 6.12.2011. According to the petitioner, in the house of the third respond...
K. Vimal Chand Bora and Another Vs. the Inspector General of Registrat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent relating to the impugned deed of unilateral cancellation of settlement dated 18.01.2012, bearing Document No.305 of 2012 and the sale deed dated 18.01.2012, bearing Document No.306 of 2012 and quash the same.) 1. The first petitioner is the husband of the third respondent. The second petitioner is their grand son born through their son. 2. The third respondent owns 1.12 acres of lands at Guduvancherry in Chengalpet Taluk in Kanchipuram District and she also owns 12.70 acres at Chinnivakkam Village in Kanchipuram Taluk and District. 3. The third respondent executed a deed of power of attorney dated 27.06.2008 in favour of the first petitioner without mentioning any schedule of property and giving power to the first petitioner to present the documents for registration and admit execution of sale deed...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »