Chennai Court October 2010 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.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Bombay Pune Road, Vs. Tvs Motor Company Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
1. Whether the right to begin as provided under Rule 1 and 2 of Order XVIII of Civil Procedure Code is really a right or is in the nature of a legal obligation of the plaintiff to produce his evidence at the first instance is the substantial question that arises for consideration in these original side appeals.2.These appeals are directed against the Order dated 10 March 2010 in C.S.No.979 and C.S.No.1111/2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge directed the appellant being the defendant in C.S.No.979/2007 and the plaintiff in the subsequent suit, to start with the letting in of evidence.3.The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant in accordance with their status before the trial Court in the suit in C.S.No.979/2007.The facts :-First suit :-4.The suit in C.S.No.979/2007 was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant praying for the following reliefs :-"(a) Declaring that the threats held out by the defendant on September 1 and 3, 2007 that the plaintiff i...
V.Srinivasan, (Deceased) and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-2010
1. The deceased 1st petitioner originally challenged the order of suspension and the charge memo issued to him.2. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that he was appointed as Bank Inspector on 25.07.1968 and after periodical promotion he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.1996. Before that, on 13.08.1996, the 2nd respondent the Joint Registrar passed an order of suspension against the petitioner stating that the enquiry into certain charges against the petitioner was pending. Notice under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 was sent on 09.01.1997 and a charge memo dated 19.01.1999 was issued to the petitioner. A reply dated 30.05.2002 was given by the petitioner. Not satisfied with the reply, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer filed the Domestic Enquiry Report dated 19.02.2003. The 1st petitioner was asked to appear before the authorities on 27.12.2004. Thereafter, there was no communication from the authorities and that was the reason ...
Masi. Vs. State by Inspector of Police Chengalpattu .
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. The petition is filed seeking a direction to set aside the unnumbered Crl.M.P. Dated 30.7.2010 and to direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District to suspend the conviction imposed on the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District made in CC No.21/2004 by judgment dated 21.5.2010 till the disposal of the appeal filed in CA No.35/2010 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.2. The petitioner herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.498(A) IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu and sentenced to undergo two years rigourous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default clause. The petitioner has preferred an appeal in CA No.35 of 2010 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. He filed an application to suspend the sentence in Crl.M.P.No.1785 of 2010 and the same was ordered on 28.5.2010. He...
Dr.P.R.Govindarajulu. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ii, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai dated 20.04.2005 made in Review Application No.3/2004 in M.P.No.7/2002 in Transferred Application No.38/2002.2. 2nd Respondent Bank filed Civil Suit in C.S.No.206/1995 in the High Court, Madras [Original Side] against the Petitioner claiming a sum of Rs.6,39,722.17 on the basis of the credit card. When the pecuniary jurisdiction of City Civil Court was enhanced, the suit C.S.No.206/1995 was transferred from the High Court, Madras to the City Civil Court, Chennai and the suit was re-numbered as O.S.No.9113/1995. In that suit, there was an exparte decree and when the Petitioner filed Petition to set aside the exparte decree, the said Petition was allowed on condition that the Defendant [Writ Petitioner] should deposit 1/4th of the suit claim.3. As against the said order directing the Defendant to deposit 1/4th of the suit claim, Defendant has filed CRP.No.836/1999. The said CRP.No.836/199...
N.R. Ramakoti, and anr. Vs. State Rep by the Inspector of Police (Crim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. The petitions are filed seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No,I, Poonamallee and quash the same.2. The petitioner in both the petitions charged for offences punishable under Secs.120-B and 409 IPC for criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust. The brief fact of the case is as follows:3. One N.T. Radhakrishna Mudalir and his wife Girijabai died on 2.10.1990 and on 22.4.2004, respectively,leaving behind 3 sons and 6 daughters. The sons are N.R. Ramakodi, N.R.Padmakodi and N.R. Navakodi. One Sasireka, Gandhimathi, Kasturibai, Renganayaki, Rajamani and Subashini are the daughters. The parents left behind family properties which remained undivided and the first son Ramakodi was looking after the management of the family property. According to the respondents, the said Ramakodi and his wife Chinthamani and one Madhavan entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit breach of trust, executed a settlement deed ...
Selvaraj, and anr. Vs. the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Lan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. The petitioners have approached this Court contending that they are residents of Magalingam Nagar Village, Elavoor, Thiruvallur District. The petitioner in W.P.No.7968 of 2010 is having agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre 20 cents comprised in Survey No.336/4B at Magalingam Nagar and the petitioner in W.P.No.7969 of 2010 is having agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre 80 cents comprised in Survey No.1276/1B at Magalingam Nagar. Adjacent to their properties, there are 11 acres 87 cents comprised in Survey Numbers as follows:- S.No. Surevey No. Extent1. 1281/1M 1 Acre 12 cents2. 1281/1S 1 Acre 02 cents3. 1281/1F 0 Acre 96 cents4. 1281/1G 0 Acre 98 cents5. 1281/1C 0 Acre 97 cents6. 1281/1H 0 Acre 97 cents7. 1281/1I 0 Acre 98 cents8. 1281/1J 0 Acre 96 cents9. 1281/1D 0 Acre 98 cents10. 1281/1E 1 Acre 00 cents11. 1281/1K 0 Acre 97 cents12. 1281/1L 0 Acre 96 cents---------------------Total extent 11 Acres 87 cents---------------------According to the petitioners, the said lands ar...
C. Narendra Kumar, and ors. Vs. State Bank of India, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned Order in unnumbered O.A. (Sr No.253/08) dated 10.01.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, the sixth respondent herein as wholly unsustainable in law.2. The contention of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-The petitioner was granted a loan by the respondents bank in the year 1995 to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs and he was paying the instalments regularly till 1999 and thereafter, due to his inability to pay the instalment amount, the firm was declared as NPA on 27.02.2003 by the first respondent bank. Thereafter, on 27.02.2003, the bank offered a one time settlement fixing the total outstanding as Rs.5.84 crores which the petitioner accepted, but he could not pay the amount within the time. One year thereafter, the bank again offered second OTS on 12.03.2004 and this time, the amount was fixed at Rs.5.87 lakhs. Though the petitioner agre...
Hemabushan, Vs. Icici Bank Limited, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.O.P.No.2359 of 2010 dated 16.08.2010 appointing Advocate-Commissioner to take possession of the property of the Petitioner.2. 2nd Respondent-Lakshmipathy and 3rd Respondent-Somasundari have availed home loan of Rs.10,21,000/- on 24.03.2004 from 1st Respondent Bank and executed various documents and also deposited title deeds of the mortgaged property. The borrowers failed to honour the commitment and so the loan account become Non Performing Asset. By exercising the power conferred on the 1st Respondent Bank under Sec.13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act], 1st Respondent Bank issued Demand notice to the borrowers [1st and 2nd Respondents] on 27.06.2009 to enable them to pay the balance amount of Rs.9,36,281.90 within 60 days from the date of notice and the said notice was duly...
Mr.L.P.Chandran. Vs. M/S.S.M.P.Textiles Pvt.Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. Second defendant in OS.No.439 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode is the petitioner in the above civil revision petition.2. The said suit has been filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money. On 12.4.2004, the defendants were set ex parte and they filed IA.Nos.391 and 392 of 2004 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. On 12.8.2004, the said applications were allowed on the condition of deposit of 25% of the suit claim. However, the first defendant filed CRP.NO.2036 of 2004 before this Court and it was allowed on 28.9.2007 and the condition of depositing 25% of the suit claim came to be set aside. But, the second defendant the petitioner herein did not challenge the order dated 12.8.2004 and hence, the same has become final. Thereafter, when the said suit is taken up for hearing, the petitioner herein filed IA.No.658 of 2009 to set aside the ex parte decree. However, IA.No.658 of 2009 came to be dismissed and being aggrieved by that, the petition...
R.Pushpalatha, and ors. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2010
1. In these Writ Petitions, Petitioner(s) seek Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri to consider and dispose of the applications made by the Petitioner(s) for issuance of Community Certificate for the Petitioner(s) son/daughter respectively.2. Since, the issue involved and point for consideration in all the Writ Petitions are one and the same, all the Writ Petitions were taken up together and shall stand disposed of by this Common Order.3. Case of Petitioner(s) is that they belong to "Kurichchan Community" which is a Scheduled Tribe as per G.O.Ms.No.1564 Social Welfare Development dated 30.07.1985 and that Respondent has issued certificate to their relatives stating that they belong to "Kurichchan Community" which is notified as Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order. Case of Petitioner(s) is that they applied to the Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri in January 2010 and since there was no response from the Respondent, Petiti...