Chennai Court January 2014 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.
Shameemunissa Vs. Union of India Owning Southern Railway
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:09. 01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.No.679 of 2010 Smt. Shameemunissa ...Appellant vs Union of India Owning Southern Railway rep. By General Manager Chennai 600 003 ...Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 54 of 1987 against the order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.No.93 of 2009. For Appellant :Mr.T.Rajamohan For Respondent :Mr.J.Harikrishna JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 07.12.2009 made in O.A.No.2009 00093 dismissing the claim application filed by the appellant herein claiming compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 for the death of her son Aejaz Ebraheem. The appellant herein had preferred the claim application before the Tribunal and the same was t...
1)p.Veerasamy Vs. V.Soundararajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA S.A(MD)No.315 of 2010 and M.P.(Md.No.1 of 2010 1)P.Veerasamy 2)V.Narayanasamy 3)V.Ramesh 4)V.Soundararajan ..Appellants versus V.Soundararajan ..Respondent Prayer Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009 made in A.S.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2008 made in O.S.No.214 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. !For Appellants ..M/s.R.Ramadurai and A.Vadamalai Kannan ^For Respondent ..M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates S.Anand Chandra Sekar :JUDGMENT When a transaction has been reduced to writing, either by requirement of law or by agreement of the parties, the writing becomes the exclusive memorial thereof; and no extrinsic evidence is admissible either to prove independently the tran...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tvs Motors Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :09. 01.2014 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.173 and 174 of 2009 --- Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai ... Appellant -vs- M/s.TVS Motors Limited Jayalakshmi Estates No.49, Haddows Road Chennai-6 ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ".C". Bench, Chennai dated 22.05.2008 in ITA.No.792, 893/Mds/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. For appellant : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishna Standing Counsel for I.T.Dept. For respondent : Mr.C.V.Rajan for Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar COMMON JUDGMENT (The Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J.) These two Tax Case (Appeals) filed by the Revenue arising out of the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's appeal as well as the Revenue's appeal were relatin...
G.Vellaichamy Vs. 1.The Managing Director,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:09. 01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.(MD)No.8030 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 G.Vellaichamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation [Madurai]. Ltd, Bye-pass Road, Madurai 625 016. 2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation [Madurai]. Ltd, Bye-pass Road, Madurai 625 016. : Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with backwages and all other attendant and monetary and other service benefits in the light of the order passed by the Authority under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in A.P.No.211/2010, dated 26.12.2012, rejecting the Approved Petition filed by the Respondents/Management. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Govindan ^For Respondents ... Mr.A.Jeyaram Standing Counsel :ORDER...
J.Jayapaul Mohan Vs. Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:09.01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.11078 of 2012 J.Jayapaul Mohan ... petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Engineer in Chief (Buildings) Chief Engineer (Buildings) Chennai Region and Chief Engineer (General) P.W.D. - Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for all the connected records in the impugned orders in G.O.(D)No.135, PWD (E1), dated 27.03.2012 and to quash the same; consequently to direct the respondents herein, more particularly the first respondent to retain the petitioner's name in the appropriate place in the panel for promotion of Assistant Executive Engineer to be released soon- without any overlooking. For petitioner : Mr.A.L.Namasivayam For Respondents : Mr.S.Naveenatham, Additional ...
T.M.Thaniyarasu Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:09. 01.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.611 of 2014 T.M.Thaniyarasu ... Petitioner vs.1. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8.2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram Range, Chennai 600 060.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ennore, Chennai.4. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), M-5, Ennore Police Station, Chennai 600 057. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 05.01.2014 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same with a consequential direction directing the respondents to grant permission to hold Public meeting by the petitioner on 10.01.2014 at Kalaignar Arangam, Annai Sivagami Nagar Playground, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019, as scheduled by using loudspeakers and to provide sufficient police protection for the public...
T.K.Srinivasan Vs. Not Applicable
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:09. 01.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.No.3279 of 2013 T.K.Srinivasan (aka) T.K.Srinivas Chari ..Appellant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 8(5)(c) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 (Act 32 of 1956) to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in H.M.G.O.P.No.22 of 2013 dated 20.08.2013 by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and grant permission to develop the 'B' schedule mentioned property by executing/registering the sale deed or power of attorney or any other deed in favour of Mr.P.Kruthivas, Director of M/s.Pushkar Properties (P) Ltd. or its nominee(s) or assignee(s). For Appellant : Mr.N.R.Chandran, Sr. Counsel for M/s.G.Vijayakumar - - - - - JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 20.08.2013 made in H.M.G.O.P.No.22 OF2013 By the said order, which is challenged in the ...
Tirupati Embroideries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
P.K. Das, J. 1. Ld. AR on behalf of Revenue raised preliminary objection in this appeal. He submits that the appeal was filed by Shri T.Pandi claiming to be the partner of the applicant-firm. He submits that it is revealed from the adjudication order at para 06.04 that T.Pandi is not the partner of the applicant-firm. He submits that by letter dt. 24.6.2013, the Asst. Commissioner (Review) office of the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin confirms this fact. On behalf of the applicant, the learned advocate submits that the company is defunct now and therefore they are unable to contact the applicant-company.2. After considering the submissions of both sides, and on perusal of the letter dt. 24.6.2013 and the finding of the adjudication order, we agree with the submission of Ld. AR for Revenue. It is seen that Shri T. Pandi is not competent to file this appeal. Accordingly, the stay application and appeal are dismissed as not maintainable....
K. Muniyandi Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Rep. By: the Def ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
V. Periya Karuppiah, Member-Judicial: 1. This application has been filed by the applicant for the relief of grant of eligible disability pension and benefits due to the applicant as per law after setting aside the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in letter No.B/41052/VIP/AG/PS-5 of Integrated HQ, MOD (Army) dated 22.2.2013 as unconstitutional. 2. The factual matrix pleaded would be as follows :- The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army in MRC on 27.9.1976 after undergoing rigorous physical fitness and medical examination. He was attested on 17.10.1977 and was posted to 1 Madras Regiment at Jaipur. The applicant was subjected to continuous training, prolonged marching and desert warfare exercises. At the same time, the applicant was also affected by natural calamities caused due to cyclone and floods at his native place which rendered his family members homeless. The application of the applicant for leave was also rejected. Due to mental worries and lack of rest and sleep depri...
M/S. Redington India Ltd. and Others Vs. Cc Air Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Per: Mathew John, J. 1. In this proceeding 24 appeals filed by the Revenue against different orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed in the case of refund of œSpecial Additional duty of Customs (œSAD? for short) levied under Section 3 (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, are being considered along with stay petitions filed by the Revenue and also Cross Objections filed by the respondents in certain cases. The cross objections are for supporting the arguments in the Orders-in-Appeal and no additional relief is prayed for. When the matter came up on 02.01.2014, it was seen that the Bench had already passed one Final Order in the matter and it was considered that the stay petitions and appeals and cross objections could be heard together and accordingly, both the sides were informed and the matter was finally taken up on 07.01.2014 and both the sides were heard accordingly. 2. As already stated, the basic issue involved in all the appeals relates to refund of SAD claimed b...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »