Chennai Court March 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.
C. Sangu, S. Priyalatha, V.K. Nagalakshmi and K. Jayakumar Vs. the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the prayer of the petitioners is same. They seek to challenge the selected list of candidates in preliminary examination for the main written examination held for Grade I Service examinations for 2007-2008, 2008-2009 published in the official website of respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short TNPSC) and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to conduct a fresh preliminary examination for Grade I service for the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 and consequently, to select and publish a fresh list of candidates for the main written examinations.2. In the first writ petitions, there are four writ petitioners. According to them, in the Group I service examinations for the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, the TNPSC assigned wrong and erroneous key answers for more than 15 questions. Though the petitioners have done well and given correct answers, they were not given good marks. In the affidavit, they have set out th...
Vasanthamma and ors. Vs. the Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners against the Award and Decree, dated 16.02.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 444 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Vellore, dismissing the claim petition with costs.2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellants/petitioners have filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal and to allow the said petition for awarding a compensation to the claimants.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 07.04.2003, at about 08.15 p.m. at Ranipet to Sholingar main road, at Keezhvelam Village, while the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No. TN23 V4608 from Sholingar to Ranipet direction and at that time, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No. TN23 N0669 belonging to the respondent Corporation, which was coming in the oppo...
The Management, Pudupalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The present Writ Petition is directed against the award dated 18.03.2003 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 264 of 2000 on the ground that the Labour Court has committed serious mistake in not only entertaining the above delayed and stale claim, but even without considering whether the 2nd respondent was appointed in accordance with the rules and other recruitment process, directed the petitioner management to pay the backwages for 13 years.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the 2nd respondent/N.Balakrishnan was appointed as Salesman in the petitioner bank's Public Distribution Shop for selling kerosene on daily wage basis to the ration card holders and that he was appointed without following the principles laid down under Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. He ceased attending duty in August 1997 and got employed elsewhere. But, all of a sudden, after a lapse of 13 years, when he approached the 1st respondent/the Presidi...
The Superintending Engineer Madurai Electrical Undertaking Acquisition ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electrical Undertaking Acquisition Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai is the writ petitioner. The writ petition is filed against the order passed by the second respondent/Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act (for brevity 'Act 43 of 1981') dated 18.4.2000 made in P.S.A. No. 2 of 1999, confirming the order of the third respondent/Authority under Act 43 of 1981, dated 28.6.1999 in P.S.A. No. 40 of 1998.2. The writ petition was admitted on 29.11.2001 and pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay. Subsequently, the interim stay was modified on 23.9.2003, directing the petitioner/Board to deposit a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the credit of P.S.A. No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the second respondent, failing which it was indicated that the stay will stand vacated automatically. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to state whether the amount has been deposited or not. 3....
S. Shanmuga Sundari Vs. U. Selvakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This transfer civil miscellaneous petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw H.M.O.P. No. 659 of 2009, pending on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore and to transfer the same to the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin.2. It has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised, as per the Hindu rites and customs, on 1.5.2000, at Mela Koottidankadu, Tuticorin District. A male child was born to the petitioner out of the wedlock, on 26.5.2002. Thereafter, in the year, 2003, the respondent had shifted the matrimonial home to No. 10/69, Anna Street, Seernaickenpalayam, Coimbatore, where the petitioner and the respondent had lived, for nearly three years. Thereafter, the respondent had moved to the State of West Bengal, in the year, 2006.3. It has been further stated that the respondent had started ill-treating the petitioner using filthy language. He had also attacked her physically, on many occasio...
M/S. Perambalur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2010
Heard both sides. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that they were not initially aware that service tax is payable on transport of sugarcane which is an agricultural produce. On being pointed out, the appellants have paid service tax on the entire amount of transport charges as they were not aware regarding the exemption available under Notification No. 32/2004 which restricted service tax on 25% of the transport charges subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 2. Shri N. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the transporters who carried the sugarcane were not registered with the service tax department and hence the question of any credit being taken by them or anyone else in respect of the transport service provided by such unregistered transporters cannot arise. He also states that the appellants had filed a refund claim in respect of excess tax but the same has been rejected only on the ground of time bar as the refund claim was filed ...
Thamilaga Thozhichalai Matrum Pothu Thozhilalargal Sangam Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The first writ petition (W.P. No. 22487/2009) is filed by a Trade Union, seeking for a direction to implement the the Award in I.D. No. 28 of 2008 dated 17.07.2009 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Chennai, (for short CGIT).2. When the matter came up on 04.11.2009, this Court directed the Central Government Standing Counsel to ascertain from the respondents regarding the implementation of the Award. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned.3. The second writ petition (W.P. No. 25529/2009) came to be filed by the Union of India, Ministry of Agriculture and the Southern Regional Officer of the Animal Quarantine and Certification Services, Pallikaranai Village, challenging the said Award. When the writ petition came up for admission on 10.12.2009, it was directed to be posted along with the earlier writ petition filed by the Trade Union.4. In view of the interconnectivity between the two writ petitions, they were heard together an...
Rajendran, Vs. the Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. The petitioners seek to quash proceedings in case pending in STC No. 2420 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District wherein he stands charged for offences under Section 323 IPC.2. In the said case, the defacto complainant had informed of injuries suffered by him at the hands of the petitioners on 05.06.2006. The grounds urged in support of the petition is that the defacto complainant had been admitted in the hospital only on 09.06.2006, that the respondent police had been in the hospital and received a complaint from him which has been suppressed and that the complaint in the present case was given on 22.08.2006 as a counterblast to the civil suit filed in O.S. No. 256 of 2006 on 28.07.2006 by the wife of the 1st petitioner. It is submitted that there were certain discrepancies between the accident register maintained by the hospital and in the complaint viz., that in the accident register, it is informed that the...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 07.04.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 239 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. II, Cuddalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 22.08.2008, at about 16.30 hours, when the petitioner was travelling in the respondent's Corporation bus bearing registration No. TN32 N0566 from Pattambakkam to Cuddalore, at Thirupapuliyur bus stand the petitioner while getting down from the bus, the driver of the bus suddenly started the bus without signal from the c...
Jeyabharatham Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Technical Side) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 2326 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent - Deputy Inspector General of Police, Reserve Police, Chennai -4 dated 10.03.2003 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner pensionary benefits due to her on account of the disappearance of her husband S. Venkatasamy working as a Head Constable as well as the family pension without insisting for a declaration of death from a Court of law.2. The Original Application was admitted on 09.07.2003. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents had filed a reply affidavit dated 04.08.2003. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P. No. 16665 of 2007.4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's husband was working as a Head Constable in the Police Telecommunication Branch at Nagapattinam since 20.06.1992. The petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »