Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad896; (1931)60MLJ25
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a rule calling upon 'the Minister, Public Health, Government of Madras,' to show cause why an order made by him on the 11th of March, 1929, should not be quashed on certiorari. The ground on which the rule was obtained may be shortly stated. The Nuzvid Union Board granted permission to a certain person to establish a rice mill within its jurisdiction. The Collector suspended the resolution of the Board, as, in his opinion, the establishment of a mill in the locality in question 'was likely to be detrimental to public health'. The Local Government passed proceedings under Sections 38 and 196 of the Local Boards Act (1920), on the 9th of June, 1928, directing that the Collector's order 'shall continue in force permanently'. Subsequently this order was rescinded on the 11th of March, 1929, the result being that permission to establish the mill was accorded. This rule was issued at the instance of certain residents of the locality who complained that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent and quash the impugned order in No.B/127/2008/SEZ dated 20.04.2015 passed by the respondent.) 1. The petitioner calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the respondent, in and by which, the respondent imposed penalty of Rs.61.76 Crores under Section 11 (2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 on the petitioner for having violated the conditions of the Letter of Approval. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner firm is a partnership firm engaged in the business of import and export of gold jewellery and other precious stones since 2006. For the purpose of importing and exporting such gold jewellery, the petitioner firm has obtained a Letter of Approval (LoA) on 10.06.2008 issued by the Assistant Development Commissioner for manufacture of "gold bangles and pendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the notification under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) vide impugned gazette publication dated 19.08.2002 amended by an errata dated 01.11.2002 published in Form - II in the Thiruvellore District Gazette insofar as the same relates to the petitioner's land in Survey Nos.150/3 and 150/5 in No.26, Ponpadi Village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvellore District, measuring 121.03 cents, as lapsed. (Prayer amended as per order dated 31.01.2017 in WMP No.797 of 2017) Prayer in W.P. No.8182 of 2003: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the notification under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) vide impugned gazette publication dated 19.08.2002 amended by an errata ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: This Revision is filed under Section 401 r/w 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1267 of 2014 in C.C.No.163 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai, dated 18.05.2015 refusing to discharge the petitioner from the case.) 1. This revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1267 of 2014 in C.C.No.163 of 1996, dated 18.05.2015 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai, refusing to discharge the petitioner from the case. 2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:- The respondent/complainant preferred a complaint under Sections 8(1), 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Chennai stating that the accused company, who were telecasting under logo J.J TV had hired transponder abro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The circumstances under which this Division Bench came to be constituted for deciding the issues arising in this reference require to be recapitulated, for which, it may be necessary to briefly state the factual matrix. [a] On 24.05.2015, two groups, categorised as "A" party and "B" party, lodged complaints against each other before the Inspector of Police, Gandhikuppam Police Station, based on which, petition enquiries were being conducted in CSR Nos. 74 of 2015 and 75 of 2015. According to the members of "A" party, the land in Survey No.562/2AB measuring 1.38 acres belongs to them and the members of "B" party are contending that the said land belongs to Bharathamatha Temple and were asserting their right to hold the Mahabaratham festival. The police, apprehending a breach of peace, registered an FIR in Cr.No.202 of 2015 and forwarded a report to the Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer for initiating proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C. Based on the report s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order dated 08.11.2013 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Court Judge, Namakkal in C.A.No.1/13 and to confirm the judgment made in STC.No.823/2010 dated 27.12.2012 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal.) Preamble: 1. The Appellant/Respondent (Complainant) has filed the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 08.11.2013 in C.A.No.1 of 2013 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal. 2. The Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.A.No.1 of 2013, on 08.11.2013, at paragraph 11, had, among other things, observed to the effect that '... P.W.1 had deposed in his cross examination (before the trial Court) that he had not filed the Contract Note and that he does not know ordinarily when shares were purchased, the account details were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer in W.P.No.7648 of 2015:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.211/2015, Thu.Va.Tha.1, dated 09.03.2015, and quash the same. in W.P.No.16617 of 2015:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.2275/2015, Thu.Va.Tha.1, dated 30.03.2015 and quash the same. in W.P.No.31309 of 2015:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent in Election Notification dated 15.09.2015 issued under Section 52(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Rules, 1983, which was duly published in the Dinamani Daily newspaper on 18.09.2015 insofar as E-81, Virudhachalam Cooperative Bank, and quash the same.) Common Order: 1. The petitioner in W.P.Nos.16617 and 31309 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge Court at Chenglepet dated 03.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.63 of 2006 reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court at Chenglepet dated 20.04.2006 in O.S.No.160 of 1997.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 passed in A.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chenglepet reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2006 made in O.S.No.160 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chenglepet. 2. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiff purchased Inam Punjai Survey No.50/1 of an extent of 0.04 cents from one Kannammal under a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1959. On the northern side of the said property an extent of 0.18 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that the appointments made by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 31.1.2016, appointing respondents 4 to 14 as Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are illegal, ab initio void and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Constitutional provisions and, therefore, consequently to hold that respondents 4 to 14 have no authority to hold the posts of Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and consequently to declare the post as vacant. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the appointment of respondents 3 to 13 as Members of the TNPSC made in G.O.(Ms.) (3) No.9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 31.1.2016 issued by the first respondent as illegal and against Constitutional manda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore dated 18.07.1996 passed in A.S.No.120 of 1996 setting aside the decree and judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 24.04.1995 passed in O.S.No.907 of 1991.) 1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit is for specific performance and mandatory injunction to transfer 17 shares of the first defendant's Society held in the name of one K.Nachi to the name of the plaintiff. The trial Court has allowed the suit as prayed for. On appeal, the first appellate Court has reversed the trial Court's finding and dismissed the appeal. 2. The brief facts leading to this Second Appeal is as under:- The first defendant-Housing Society with the financial assistance of the Government constructed 112 houses for it members and alloted to them on lease-cum-sale agreement for a period of 25 years. One Mr.K.Nachi, the hu...
Tag this Judgment!