Chennai Court February 2008 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.
S. Muthuramu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Chief Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ766
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 20.8.2005, passed by the first respondent herein.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) Petitioner started his service in the Revenue Department as Junior Assistant in the year 1972; got promoted as Assistant in the year 1975; further promoted as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1984; as Tahsildar in the year 1993; as Deputy Collector in the year 1998; and as District Revenue Officer in the year 2001. When the writ petition was filed, he was serving at the Principal Civil Services Training Institute, Bavanisagar. He has put in totally 34 years of service.(b) When the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector, he was posted as Additional Special Deputy Collector and at that time, the Sub Registrar, Arakkonam referred Document No. 70 of 1998 under Section 47-A(1) ...
K. Ganesan Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ438
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The often arising question regarding parallel progress of criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings arises in this writ petition.2. The petitioner is working as a Scientific Officer in Madras Automic Power Station (MAPS), Kalpakkam, which is a very sensitive post. The standard of integrity and discipline required of such an officer needs hardly to be stressed.3. On 30.9.2004, an F.I.R. was registered by the C.B.I. against the petitioner alleging that he had committed the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468 read with 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The C.B.I. filed a charge sheet in the Court of Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Chennai. On 18.6.2007, the first respondent served upon the petitioner a charge memo alleging that the petitioner had committed acts of gross misconduct, viz. failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, commiss...
M. Nagu and ors. Vs. the District Collector and the Special Tahsildar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC468; (2008)4MLJ609
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order issued by the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31/78) (in short, 'the Act') in respect of the following properties said to have belonged to various petitioners, situate at Naanamadai village, Aakavayal, Elayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, as published in the District Gazette dated 29.6.1998:Sl. No. Survey No. Extent Owner's Name1. 25/11A 0.09.5 Hectares M.Nagu25/14D 0.11.5 '25/11B 0.09.0 '2. 25/14A 0.02.0 ' K. Malairaj25/14C 0.11.5 '3. 25/12B 0.11.0 ' D. Velu4. 25/12A 0.11.5 ' C. Muthammal5. 25/13 0.04.0 ' M. Sundaram6. 25/14B 0.11.5 ' V. Govindammal2. The petitioners are said to be the owners of various extent of properties in survey numbers stated above and are all small farmers. According to the petitioners, the Government has already acquired lands for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars of Naanamadai...
Suguna and K. Devi Vs. Vinod G. Nehemiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC433; 2008(2)CTLJ223(Mad); (2008)5MLJ167
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree passed in C.S. No. 153 of 2002 and Tr.C.S. No. 374 of 2002 dated 12.9.2007. O.S.A. No. 330 of 2007 arises out of C.S. No. 153 of 2002. O.S.A. No. 331 of 2007 arises out of Transfer C.S. No. 374 of 2002. The first appellant and the second appellant in O.S.A. No. 330 of 2007 are the first and the second defendants in C.S. No. 153 of 2002 and the appellant in O.S.A. No. 331 of 2002 is the plaintiff in Transfer C.S. No. 374 of 2002.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their rank in O.S.A. No. 330 of 2007. The facts leading to the filing of the suits are as follows:Respondents-1 to 4 herein in this appeal filed a suit against the appellants in C.S. No. 153 of 2002 seeking a declaration that the settlement deed dated 15.12.2000 executed by the plaintiffs' father J.V.A. Nehemiah was illegal, invalid, sham and nominal. They also sought for a direction to defendants-1 to 3 therei...
Rajan, Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Cbcid (Crime)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3693
V. Periya Karuppiah, J.1. The reference in R.T. No. 3 of 2007 is by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai seeking confirmation of the death sentence imposed on A1 in S.C. No. 1 of 1993 dated 25.6.2007.2. Crl.A. Nos. 607 of 2007, 613 of 2007 and 653 of 2007 are filed by Accused Nos. 5, 4 & 1 in S.C. No. 1 of 1993 respectively challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them. 3. A criminal miscellaneous petition in M.P. No. 2 of 2007 is filed by A1/Appellant in C.A. No. 653 of 2007 seeking permission to raise additional grounds.4. In the Sessions Case, totally 12 accused were charge sheeted and the case against A2, A3 and A8 was split up in S.C. No. 58 of 1997. Similarly, the case against A9 to A11 was split up even at the preliminary case stage and assigned with P.R.C. No. 8 of 1989. The case against A7 and A12 stand abated, since they died during the pendency of the case before the trial Court. The remaining accused A1, A4, A5 and A6 were tried by the learned...
S.R. Jeyaraman and Vs. G. Jothirlingam and ors., All Are Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ86
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. D. Sivakumaran, who extensively made his objection regarding the order passed in CRP.(NPD). No. 1399 of 2006. The grievance of the learned counsel is that under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the trial Court is perfectly correct in observing in I.A. No. 1981 of 2005 in O.S. No. 1138 of 2005 that if the deficit Court fee for the value of Rs. 30,00,000/- is not paid, the plaint will be rejected. Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC runs as follows:Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;(b)where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaint, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;(c)where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be...
S.M. Syed Iqbal Vs. the Registrar, University of Madras and the Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ518
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This public interest litigation has been preferred by the petitioner for a declaration that the entire selection process started by the 1st respondent, University of Madras, pursuant to advertisement published in the newspaper 'The Hindu' on 10th Sept., 2007, in Ref. No. D1(B)/TE/2007/G2 AD 138, dated 8th Sept., 2007, for selection of teaching faculties in its various departments without complying with the Tamil Nadu Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and Appointments or Posts in the Service under the State) Act, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2007') is null and void and illegal.2. According to the petitioner, he is the Secretary of Tamil Nadu Thouhid Jamath, a registered organisation. He, along with other members, organised various forms of protests, conferences, public meetings, etc., to get reservation for Muslims in Tamil Nadu. It is s...
Tamil Nadu State Retired Transport Employees Association Rep. by Its G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ623Mad
K. Chandru, J.1. Originally, this Writ Petition was posted before a Division Bench along with Writ Appeal Nos. 111 to 113 of 2007. However, at the request of the Counsel for the petitioner, it was de-linked and it came to be posted before this Court.2. When the matter was taken up to-day, Mr. D. Sadhasivan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, was asked as to how the Writ Petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner/Association, which is not a 'Registered body'. In paragraph No. 1 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, except for stating that the petitioner/Association is affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Retired Officials Association, which is recognized by the State Government, nothing else is mentioned. Even the details relating to members of the Association have not been furnished.3. Learned Counsel fairly conceded that the petitioner/Association is not a registered body either under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 or the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1...
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department Vs. R.K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ782
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the counsels appearing for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed by the State Government against the order of the Tribunal, where under, the Tribunal has issued a positive direction for promoting the present respondent No. 1 from the post of Tahsildar to the post of Deputy Collector. The Tribunal has referred to the fact that on the crucial date of consideration, there was no departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner. However the Tribunal has completely lost sight of the fact that by the time the question of actual promotion came up, the departmental proceedings containing charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were pending. In this context the Tribunal even though had referred to G.O. Ms. No. 368 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 18.10.1995, it has completely misdirected itself relating to the applicability of Paragraph 5 of G.O. Ms. No. 368 referred above. Pa...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Chelladurai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Mad)61; [2009]317ITR370(Mad); [2009]176TAXMAN31(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In these appeals, the Revenue assails the order of the Tribunal granting the relief of deduction under Section 10(10C) of the IT Act, 1961 to the respective assessees, who have severed their service connection from their employer-the ICICI Bank and the RBI, under a scheme framed in the year 2003 called 'ICICI Bank Early Retirement Option 2003' and 'Optional Early Retirement Scheme (OERS) 2003', respectively.2. Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 101, 410, 22, 425 and 1360 of 2007 relate to the employees of ICICI Bank and Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 1353 and 1397 of 2007 relate to the employees of RBI.3. As the relief sought for; the contentions raised and the ultimate decision rendered are one and the same, except the assessees in each of the appeals, these appeals are taken together and are disposed of by this common order. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 101 of 2007 is taken as a typical case in respect of the employees of the ICICI Bank and Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1353 of 2007 is taken ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »