Chennai Court September 2012 Judgments
Hotel Vaithee Park Rep by Its Partner V.P. Srinivasan Vs. the Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in proceedings No.P and E (2) 1/4297/12 dt 16.8.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent viz The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 16.8.2012, suspending the F.L.3 licence granted in favour of the petitioner temporarily under Rule 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended, inter alia, that the third respondent had no authority or power to suspend the F.L.3 licence issued in favour of the petitioner, based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Kancheepuram District, dated 6.8.2012...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Jai Santam, Virudhunagar District Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned proceedings of the second respondent Proc.No. PandE2(4)/ 4297/2012 dated 17.08.2012 and quash the said proceedings.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 17.8.2012, suspending the F.L.3 licence granted in favour of the petitioner, temporarily, under Rule 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended, inter alia, that the second respondent had no authority or power to suspend the F.L.3 licence issued in favour of the petitioner, based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Sivaganga District, dated 5.8.2012. 4. The impugned order...
Tag this Judgment!Tvl. Meridian Industries Limited, Amalgamated and Now Known as Precot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in S.P.No.509 of 2012 in A.P.No.1002 of 2012, dated 13.08.2012 and quash the same.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. 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 order of the first respondent, dated 13.08.2012, made in S.P.No.509 of 2012, in A.P.No.1002 of 2012, is modified, permitting the petitioner to furnish a personal bond for the balance amount of tax and penalty of Rs.10,10,651/-, instead of furnishing a bank guarantee for the said amount. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing on behalf of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!D.Panneer Selvam Vs. K.Loganathan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
(Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 6.11.2000 made in WC.No.102/1998 by the learned Labour Commissioner I for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai-6.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 6.11.2000 made in WC.No.102/1998 by the learned Labour Commissioner I for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai-6, wherein the claim of the Appellant was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.2,16,026/-, however directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order with a further stipulation that in default of such payment within the said period, the awarded sum would carry simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. 2. Mr.A.Shanmugaraj, the learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the interest is payable at a minimum rate of 12 per cent p.a., as provided under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Thangam Nair and Another Vs. Kamalachi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
(Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Judgment dated 29.11.2005 of the learned Single Judge, in C.S.No. 4 of 2000 of this Court.) P. DEVADASS, J. This intra-Court Appeal has been directed by the appellant against the dismissal of their suit in C.S.No. 4 of 2000 by the learned Single Judge. 2. Originally, the suit has been instituted by MKP Nair @ Mangalapalapalli Krishna Pillai Prabakaran Nair(1st plaintiff) seeking a declaration as to his title to the suit property since he has perfected title to it by adverse possession. 3. Admittedly, Dr.K.C.S.Pillai, the husband of first defendant, who is also the father of defendants 2 to 4 is the owner of the suit property measuring 2 grounds and 1213 sq.ft., situate in Nungambakkam, Chennai. First plaintiff and Dr.Pillai are known persons. In July 1978, first plaintiff lent Rs.4,00,000/- to Dr.Pillai. In the meanwhile, first plaintiff learnt that Dr.Pillai is planning ...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Vinodhini and Another Vs. A.Tamilarasan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
(Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2007 made in O.S.No.34 of 2005 on the file of Principal District judge, Vellore.) R.BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of Judgment in O.S.No.34 of 2005 dismissing the suit filed by S.T.Arumugam Mudaliar on behalf of his minor grand children for partition. 2. The plaintiff Arumugam Mudaliar has three sons viz., Karthikeyan, Tamilarasan (1st defendant) and Balamuthu. Minor plaintiffs are the daughters of the said Tamilarasan (1st defendant). The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. A family partition was effected under Ex.A.1 partition deed (dated 26.3.1990) and in the said partition, the suit properties were allotted to the share of the 1st defendant. Since there was dispute in respect of the allotment of properties in respect of Survey Nos.219 and 220/1, Karthikeyan filed suit in O.S.No.90 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Vellore for declaration and injunction a...
Tag this Judgment!C. Muthukaruppan Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and Othe ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
(Prayer: Writ 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 passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.02/VS/MLR/AC-TKM/Land)/2012, dated 15.09.2012, quash the same and direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to give permission for placing the idol of Lord Ganesh on 19.09.2012 and permit to take procession with the idol on 21.09.2012.) 1. Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 2. By way of lunch motion, the petitioner has sought for interference of an order, dated 15.09.2012, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tallakulam Range, Madurai, the second respondent herein, rejecting the request of the petitioner to keep Vinayagar idol at a specified place and to take out a procession with the said statue on 21.09.2012. 3. According to the petitioner, he is affiliated to a politi...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chinnammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
(Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 01.03.2005 made in MCOP.No.890 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur.) R.SUBBIAH, J. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.5), Coimbatore at Tiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.890 of 1994 (dated 01.03.2005), Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed the present Appeal. 2. Before the Tribunal, Appellant-Insurance Company is third respondent; respondents 1 to 5 are claimants; 6th and 7th respondents are the driver and owner of lorry bearing registration No.TCM 5247, involved in the accident. 3. At the outset, Appellant Insurance Company fairly submitted that they are confining arguments only with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and, as such, there is no need to deal with othe...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Pethel Raj and Others Vs. Ve Vairappan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
(PRAYER in W.A.No.1704 of 2010: Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.4.2009 made in W.P.No.21786 of 2004. PRAYER in W.A.No.304 of 2011: Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.2.2011 made in W.P.No.21127 of 2010. PRAYER in W.A.No.305 of 2011: Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.2.2011 made in W.P.No.23167 of 2010.) P.JYOTHIMANI,J. 1. These writ appeals appertain to a dispute between the persons appointed as Assistant Engineers in and around the years 1981-1985 in the Highways and Rural Works Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu on temporary basis, who continue in service, and the persons appointed in the said category in 1991-1992 through the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for brevity, "the TNPSC"). 2. The writ appeal in W.A.No.1704 of 2010 has been filed against the order dated 27.4.2009 of the learned Judge in W.P.No.21786 of 2004 by the appellants, who are the direct recr...
Tag this Judgment!Meera Raju and Others Vs. State Bank of Travancore and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
(Appeal Suit filed under Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2006 in O.S.No.405 of 1994 on the file of the Court of District Judge of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.) R.SUBBIAH, J. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of District Judge of the Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam in O.S.No.405 of 1994 (dated 14.02.2006). 2. Appellants are defendants 3, 4, 6, 11 and 12 and respondents, numbering 6, are plaintiff and defendants 1 and 7 to 10. For convenience, parties would be referred as in their original rank in the suit. 3. Brief facts of Plaintiff Bank are as follows: (a) Originally the suit was filed only as against D1 to D6. Since D2-K.J.Bheeman died during pendency of suit, D7 to D9 (respondents 3 to 5 in the appeal) were brought on record. Similarly, D5-Nataraj died during trial stage and his legal representatives were brought on record as D-10 to D-12 (6th respondent and appellants 4 and 5). D-10 Baby also died. (b)...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »