Chennai Court April 2013 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.
Vayuvidyut Projects Vs. Shanghai Electric Wind Power
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
O.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2013 VINOD K.SHARMA, J.O.A.No.116 of 2013: This application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with section 9(ii)(d)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has been filed for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent, their agents, servants, collaborators, partners, associates or agreement holders wherever they be located or based other than the applicant from assembling, manufacturing, importing, marketing, selling or in any manner dealing with Wind Turbines/Wind Turbine Generators or its components/sub assembles and parts within the territory of India other than through the applicant pending arbitration proceedings. O.A.No.117 of 2013: This application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with section 9(ii)(d)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has been filed for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent, their agents, servants, collaborators, partners, associates or agreement holders from violating the Collab...
S.M.Karthikeyan Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 29 4.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.31618 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.34662 of 2005 S.M.Karthikeyan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Neyveli-1 2.The Additional Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority Lignite Sales/Mine I-A Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Administrative Office, Block-26, Neyvel3. The Chief General Manager/MineI&IA/ Appellate Authority Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Administrative Office, Block-26, Neyvel4. The General Manager/TA Township Administrative Office Block-10, Neyvel5. The Deputy General Manager/Vigilance Office of the Vigilance Officer Block 8, Neyveli 1 .. Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order in Procs.No.1222/Mine-IA/P&A/DA/2004 dated 21.12.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by t...
Mohanavathy Vs. Punyakodi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :29. 04.2013 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA S.A.No.1207 of 1999 Mohanavathy .. Appellant Vs. Punyakodi .. Respondent This Second Appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 02.11.1998 passed in A.S.No.83 of 1997 passed by the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1996 in O.S.No.150 of 1986 passed by the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur. For Appellant : Mr.M.S.Subramanian JUDGMENT This Second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 02.11.1998 passed in A.S.No.83 of 1997 by the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1996 in O.S.No.150 of 1986 passed by the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur.2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Despite printing the name of the respondent, there is no representation on his behalf.4. In a few broad stroke...
Don Bosco School Vysarpadi and Another Vs. Minor R. Ramya and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.25.11.2008 in CC. No.41/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 05.04.2013. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on bothsides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) R. Regupathi, President 1. The opposite parties aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, preferred the present appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that their two children by name Ramya and Jegan, studying in 3rd standard and 6th standard respectively, in the school of the opposite parties. During the academic year 2007-2008, it is alleged that the children were harassed by the teaching staff of the opposite...
Prem Finance Corporation Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory Vs. M/S. Ori ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.11.10.2011 in CC. No.73/2011. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 05.04.2013. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on bothsides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) R. Regupathi, President 1. The District Forum, declined to entertain the complaint as not maintainable, on the ground that the complainant is not a competent person, to file the complaint. Aggrieved against the said order the present appeal is filed by the complainant. 2. The complainant stood as a financier for the purchase of a lorry bearing Regn. No.KA 01-B-9747, and it has been registered in the name of one Mr.Muqtair Ahmed. T...
Selvi Shruthi Mitra Rep. by Authorised Agent Prof.S. Mahalingam Vs. Se ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Forum dismissed the petition for condoning the delay of 44 days in filing complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.09.2011 in CMP.NO.155/2011 in CC.Sr.No.33/2011. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 17.04.2013. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant in person and counsels for respondents, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: R. Regupathi, President 1. The complainant preferred a petition to condone the delay of 44 days in preferring the complaint, and the District Forum after hearing both the parties, finding no merits, dismissed the petition, against which the present appeal is filed. 2. The grand daughter of the complainant was admitted in BDS course...
A. Antony Muthu Vs. M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Rep. by Managing Dir ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.30.09.2011 in CC. No.4/2011. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 27.3.2013. Upon hearing the arguments of the Appellant in person counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) R. Regupathi, President 1. Aggrieved against the order impugned, passed by the District Forum, the complainant preferred the present appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Whirlpool refrigerator model No.10865 Elite AS 220 liters, in code No.081205, Serial No.INAO 84903830 for a sum of Rs.15,500/- on 17.7.2009, from the 3rd opposite party, manufactured by the 1st and 2nd opp...
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and Another Vs. M/S. V.G.P. Investmen ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1. These appeals by assessee and the Department are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience since common issues are involved in these appeals. 2. First we take up the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1200 to 1206/Mds/2012. These appeals emanate from the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai, dated 22.12.2011 in ITA Nos.212 to 218/10-11. We find that these appeals are filed with delay of 101 days. However, the assessee has filed petition explaining reasons for delay in filing of these appeals and prayed for condoning the delay in filing these appeals. We have carefully gone through the reasons advanced in the petition and we are satisfied that sufficient and reasonable cause exists for delay in filing these appeals. We condone the delay of 101 days and admit these appeals. 3. The only common ground in the grounds of appeals of the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in e...
Precot Meridian Limited, Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Challa Nagendra Prasad, JM: 1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore dated 7.3.2012 in ITA No.273/10-11 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The first issue in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cotton yarn, polyester, sewing threads and processed fabrics filed its return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 29.9.2008 admitting total income of Rs. 4,77,72,349/-. Later, a revised return was filed on 16.9.2009 declaring income at Rs.4,66,67,253/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 31.12.2010 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.6,75,24,121/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed cost of replacement of machi...
Dhanalakshmi Vs. Devaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:26.04.2013 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.1390 of 2000 Dhanalakshmi ... Appellant vs. 1.Devaki Ammal 2.Rajeswari 3.Rajendrababu 4.Dillibabu 5.Umamaheswari 6.Baskaran 7.Special Officer, Maduranthakam Co-op.Sugar Mills, Padalam ... Respondents This second appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 31.3.2000 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam, Chengalpet District, reversing the judgement and decree dated 26.2.1999 passed by the Distict Munsif, Maduranthakam in O.S.No.122 of 1994. For Appellant : Mr.N.Nagu Sah For Respondents : Ms.C.R.Rukmani for RR1 to 6 JUDGMENT This second appeal is focussed by the second plaintiff, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 31.3.2000 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam, Chengalpet District, reversing the judgement and decree dated 26.2.1999 passed by the Distict Munsif, Maduranthakam in O.S.No.122 of 1994, which was one for recovery of possession and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »