Chennai Court April 2014 Judgments
Aheli Bal Vs. Director of Jipmer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25. 04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.21814 of 2013 Miss.Aheli Bal .. Petitioner -vs- 1. The Director JIPMER Puducherry 605 086 2. Medical Council of India represented by its Secretary Sector 8 New Delhi .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to treat the marks secured by the petitioner in the second semester of the M.B.B.S. Course in the subject of Anatomy as a pass. For Petitioner :: Ms.R.Vaigai for Mr.R.Syed Mustafa For Respondents :: Mr.Mohan Parasaran Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.M.T.Arunan for R1 Mr.V.P.Raman for R2 ORDER Ms.Aheli Bal has come to this Court seeking a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the first respondent-JIPMER, Puducherry to treat the marks secured by her in the second semester of the M.B.B.S. Course in the subject of Anatomy as a pass and to pass further ...
Tag this Judgment!1.V.Raveendran Vs. 1.Capt.S.K.Joshua
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.04.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN A.S.No.26 of 2005 and CMP No.724 of 2013 1.V.Raveendran 2.I.V.Reddy 3.I.Damodara Reddy 4.M.Hymavathi : Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1.Capt.S.K.Joshua 2.T.K.Singaram 3.Jayathilakam : Respondents/Defendants Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and decree, dated 26.06.2003 passed in Original Suit No.6689 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. For Appellants : Mr.P.Ranganatha Reddy for M/s.King & Partridge For 3rd Respondent : Mrs.Chitra Sampath Senior Counsel for Mr.T.S.Baskaran For R1 and R2 : No appearance JUDGMENT The plaintiffs in O.S.No.6689 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, are the appellants. 2.The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and that suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the Appeal Suit is filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. 3.Th...
Tag this Judgment!Gowri Rajes Vs. Radhika Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.04.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN CRP No.2019 of 1994 and A.S.No.891 of 1995 CRP No.2019 of 2014:- 1.Gowri Rajes 2.Dhayal Rajes 3.Mohan Rajes 4.Sundara Rajes : Petitioners/D1,D5,D6 and D8 versus 1.Radhika Raja 2.M.S.P.Rajes 3.Banumathi Raja 4.M.S.P.Raja 5.Minor Periasamy Ramesh Raja :Respondents/Plaintiff & Represented by M.S.P.Rajes D2, D3, D4 and D7 Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Fair and Decretal order, dated 03.08.1992 made in I.A.No.459 of 1990 in I.A.No.616 of 1976 in O.S.No.515 of 1975 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. Tr.A.S.No.891 of 1995:- Mohan Rajesh : Appellant/Defendant versus 1.M.S.P.Rajah (died) : 1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.Mrs.Bhanumathi Rajah 3.Ramesh Rajah 4.Mrs.Madhana Ramamoorthy 5.Mrs.Suguna Mahendran 6.Mrs.Radhika Natarajan 7.Mrs.Preetha Kannan :Respondents 2 to 7 [RR2 to RR7 brought on record as L.Rs.of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shashi Kant Sharma Vs. Jitendra Kumar Jain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:25. 04/2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN APPLICATION Nos.5529 to 5532 of 2013 and O.A.No.709 of 2013 in C.S.No.634 of 2013 APPLICATION No.5529 of 2013 --------------------------- P-1 SHRI SHASHI KANT SHARMA D-196, PUSHPAK MARG, HANUMAN NAGAR, VAISHALI JAIPUR302019 P-2 SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA D-196, PUSHPAK MARG, HANUMAN NAGAR, VAISHALI JAIPUR302019 P-3 SMT. VIJAY LAXMI SHARMA @ CHAUHAN, REP.BY HER POWER AGENT SHRI. SHASHI KANT SHARMA HANUMAN NAGAR, VAISHALI JAIPUR302019 P-4 SHRI PRBODH SHARMA REP.BY HER POWER AGENT SHRI SHASHI KANT SHARMA D-196, PUSHPAK MARG, HANUMAN NAGAR, VAISHALI JAIPUR302019 VS R-1 MR.JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN B-152, SUNNYVALE APARTMENTS NO.351, KONNUR HIGH ROAD, AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI23R-2 M/S. INFLUENCE ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LTD REP BY ITS DIRECTOR MR NARESH JAIN APPLICATION No.5530 of 2013 --------------------------- P-1 SHRI SHASHI KANT SHARMA D-196, PUSHPAK MARG, HANUMAN NAGAR, VAISHALI JAIPUR302019 P-2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Thuluva Vellalar Sangam Vs. R.Manthrasalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25. 04-2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN C.R.P. (NPD) No.1003 of 2006 Thuluva Vellalar Sangam, a registered Society, having its office at Door No.29/310, Vysyal Street Coimbatore Represented by its President .. Petitioner Versus 1. R. Manthrasalam 2. R. Manoharan 3. R. Rajendran 4. R. Santhanalakshmi 5. R. Premavathi 6. R. Jayakumar .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 02.12.2005 passed in E.A. No.556 of 2003 in E.P. No.405 of 1984 in O.S. No.497 of 1970 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Coimbatore. For Petitioner : Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate for Mr. S. Raghu For Respondents : Mr. T.R. Rajaraman ORDER The petitioner/Sangam has filed this Civil Revision Petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 02.12.2005 passed in E.A. No.556 of 2003 in E.P. No.405 of 1984 in O.S. No.497 of 1970 on the file of the learned Prin...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusami Chettiar Vs. Palanisami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25. 04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH S.A.No.1422 of 1999 Ponnusami Chettiar .. Appellant Vs. Palanisami Gounder .. Respondent Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 18.01.1999 made on the file of Subordinate Court at Bhavani, Erode District in A.S.No.36 of 1998 wherein confirmed the decree and judgment dated 18.06.1997 made in O.S.No.338 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani. For the Appellant : Mr.R.Swaminathan For the Respondent : Mr.P.Valliappan JUDGMENT The appellant who is the defendant in the suit preferred this Second Appeal against the decree and judgment dated 18.01.1999 made on the file of the Subordinate Court at Bhavani, Erode District in A.S.No.36 of 1998 wherein confirmed the decree and judgment dated 18.06.1997 made in O.S.No.338 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.2. Fo...
Tag this Judgment!Madasamy Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:25. 04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.15636 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012 Madasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. 2.The District Registrar (Administration), Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Muthukulathoor, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining in No.1715/M1/2011 dated 16.03.2011 signed on 16.03.2012 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, unjust and without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the third respondent to register the petitioner's decree in O.S.No.32 of 2009, dated 23.06.2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Muthukulathoor, and to release the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.Guru, Additional Govt.Pleader * * * *...
Tag this Judgment!V.Raghupathy Vs. Commissioner of Chennai Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 25.04.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.Nos.22111 and 22112 of 2012 *** V.Raghupathy ..Petitioner in W.P.No.22111/2012 C.Dhanasekaran ..Petitioner in W.P.No.22112/2012 versus 1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai 600 003. 2.The Assistant Commissioner/Zonal Officer Zone VII (New Zone IX) Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 3.The Appointment Committee Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings, Chennai 600 003..Respondents Common PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st Respondent in Proceedings bearing Ma.A.7.Na.Ka.No.A2/9284/2009 dated 18.04.2012 as confirmed by Resolution of the 3rd Respondent in Resolution No.157 & 158/2012 respectively dated 13.06.2012 and quash the same and direct the 1st Respondent to reinstate the Petitioners in service with all attendant benefits like...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Shanmugam Vs. the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Gingee, Vi ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.87/2003, dated 27.08.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant availed Agricultural Jewel Loan from the opposite party during the year 1999 by pledging 43 grams jewels and obtained loan of Rs.10,000/- and subsequently when he went to the bank for redeeming the jewels on 8.4.2003 he came to know that the jewels were already auctioned and a sum of Rs.4050/- is available to be payable by the c...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1. Both the appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore both the appeals are taken up for disposal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of bolts, nuts and screws falling under Chapter 7318.10 of CETA, 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. They cleared the goods on payment of duty and a portion of the goods was cleared without payment of duty under Chapter X Procedure. The issue raised in the present proceeding is that the respondent is liable to pay 8% of the value of the goods cleared under Chapter X under Rule 57CC / Rule 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The period of demand is from April 2000 to November 2000 and from January 2000 to March 2000 in respect of both the appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeals filed by the respondent on the ground that there is no machinery provision in the Act or Rules for its recovery. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »