Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: konkan passenger ships acquisition act 1973 section 14 penalties Sorted by: recent Court: chennai Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.129 seconds)

Oct 19 2012 (HC)

Tata Sky Limited, Mumbai and Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Throug ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-19-2012

..... association of india v. union of india) and (1981) 2 scc 318 (international tourist corporation vs. state of haryana) in respect of levy of tax on passengers and goods under the haryana goods and passengers taxation act of 1952, as falling under entry 60 list ii and service tax levy under entry 92c/entry 97 list i and the decision reported in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2012 (HC)

Lakshmi School and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-21-2012

(Prayer: Writ Petition in W.P.No.28305 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the reords of the 3rd respondent relating to the fee determined in respect of the petitioner School bearing R.C.No.8/PSFDC/PC/2010 dated 7.5.2010 and quash the same and consequentially forbear the respondents from taking any steps towards enforcing or imposing or otherwise issuing directions to the petitioner's school in the matter of collection of fees from tis students. Writ Petition in W.P.No.28306 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of declaration declaring that the provisions enacted under Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 is not applicable to petitioner school and any order passed or direction issued by the 3rd respondent in pursuant to the fixing of fees for the petitioner school as invalid....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2012 (HC)

Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Represented ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-14-2012

(Prayer in W.P.No.8509 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Unscheduled Interchange Charges and Related Matters) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2012, contained in Notification No.1(1)/2011-CERC, dated 5.3.2012, as arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires the Constitution of India and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.8510 of 2012:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Electricity Regulatory Commission (Indian Electricity Grid Code) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2012, contained in Notification No.1/18/2010-CERC, dated 5.3.2012, as arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires the Constitution of India and quash the same.) 1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels ap...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2012 (HC)

Dr.J.Santhosh Kumar. Vs. the Block Medical Officer.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-24-2012

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings Nil, dated 11.06.2010 and subsequent notion in proceedings Na.Ka.2297/A2/2010, dated 29.07.2010 and quash the same, as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.O R D E R1. Challenge in this writ petition, is to the competence of a Block Medical Officer, who exercised the power under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, and other provisions of the Act, and closed down a Hospital, named "Get Well", Tirukoilur. The Hospital, where treatment was given, began unwell on 11.06.2010, when it was found difficult in meeting out certain defects, alleged to be violations and consequently, sealed. Another proceeding impugned in this writ petition is to the order, rejecting the request of the petitioner to open the hospital.2. According to the petitioner, he has completed bachelor of Homeopathy Medicine and Surg...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2012 (HC)

Munusamy Gounder Vs. Palani Gounder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-07-2012

..... only on proprietary, but also on possessory title, the onus is on them to prove the same. if a plaintiff has title then, that can be replaced by means of acquisition of title by means of adverse possession of the defendants. if the contesting defendant has acquired title by means of adverse possession then, the plaintiff suit for declaration of title .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2012 (HC)

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-26-2012

..... . if a drug is likely to be harmful or likely to involve any risk, to human beings, the withdrawal of the same from the market, should happen instantaneously, upon the acquisition of knowledge about such potentially harmful effects. it is no argument in such cases to contend that the drug has already had its harmful effect for ten years and that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2012 (HC)

Zeenath Begum Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-09-2012

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue a necessary notification in the Government Gazette to notify the amendment introduced in Bill No.7 of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 in the Legislative Assembly under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to issue notification in the Government Gazette to notify the amendment introduced vide Bill No.7 of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 by the Legislative Assembly under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and pass such other or further orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner along with her sons purchased land measuring 14.23.50 Hectares in S.No.785/1C1G (2.23.0...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //