Chennai Court April 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.
Veerateeswaran Vs. Meenalochani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
Aruna Jagadeesan, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed at the instance of the Plaintiff in OS. No. 203/98 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal and has been entertained on the following substantial questions of law:a Whether the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated in overlooking the admission of the Respondent in her Written Statement that she had every right to demolish the suit pillar and whether that admission is not sufficient to grant injunction in favour of the appellant?b Whether the Respondent having failed to raise the objection when the suit pillar is put up by the Appellant, prevented by Principal of acquiescence from asking removal of the same now?2. The suit in OS. No. 203/98 was instituted by the Appellant/Plaintiff for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant from interfering with the suit property, that is the pillar and the portico, the structure resting over the said pillar in his house bearing Door No....
T. Sundara Rajan Vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. This petitioner, who is the accused in case pending in C.C. No. 132 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, seeks to quash the proceedings against him. A final report has been filed, which reads as follows:The accused T. Sundarajan was working as the Managing Partner of Sr. Maruthi Finance and Investments at No. 11, Sannathi Street, Little Kancheepuram. During the period in between 1995 and 1996 the accused T. Sundarajan being the Managing Partner of the Sri Maruthi Finance and Investments with intention to cheat the public and other Co-partners had induced the public to deliver their money in the Finance for investments and committed criminal misappropriation of Finance funds to the tune of Rs. 9,14,540/- by directly took the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as a personal loan and use the same for his own purpose and not return this money to the members. He prepared 46 bogus loans and receipts to the name of 46 members and signed and for...
Arumugam Vs. the Chairman Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is a Registered Contractor in the respondent Mills. The petitioner was given the impugned order dated 24.11.2008 by the respondent stating that he has been warned on several occasions and on the basis of the Purchase Committee's resolution that the petitioner would not be considered for any tender either directly or indirectly and his name must be removed from the list of registered contractors, his name has been added in the black list.3. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner was given the work order for the purpose of bringing Labourers for doing work in the godown attached to the sugar godown of the mill. The petitioner was not discharging the contractual terms and he has also not repacked the damaged sugar bags. On account of the slackness on the part of the petitioner, the Management of the mill itself has to make alternative arrangement for the purpose of doing the work. This has created a bottlenec...
The Management of St. Thomas Hospital and Leprosy Centre Vs. Jessy Joy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The first writ petition (W.P. No. 24542/2001) was filed by the Management, challenging the Award dated 26.07.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in I.D. No. 208 of 1996 granting reinstatement with service continuity but without backwages to the contesting respondent/workman. The writ petition was admitted on 14.12.2001 and notice was ordered to the contesting respondent. An order of interim stay was granted on the same day.2. Subsequently, the workman took out an application for payment of monthly wages under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act. By an order dated 26.12.2002, the interim stay was made absolute on condition that the Management deposit the entire arrears of backwages within eight weeks and pay the last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. In default of these conditions, it was ordered that the stay shall stand vacated.3. It is at this juncture, the Workman filed W.P. No. 10881 of 2002, challenging the Award of the Labour...
Kamalammal (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
M. Duraiswamy, J.1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 43 of 1996 and Cross Objection in A.S. No. 43 of 1996, on the file of Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 131 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.2. The first defendant is the first appellant in the above second appeal and the third defendant in the suit, who had filed the Cross Objection before the lower appellate Court, is the second appellant in the above second appeal. The first respondent in the second appeal is the plaintiff, who died pending appeal, and his legal representatives are respondents 19 to 23. Respondents 2 to 8 are the defendants in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 131 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai for the following reliefs:(a) Directing the division of the suit 'A' schedule and 'E' Schedule properties into 4 equal shares, taking good and bad soil into consideration...
M. Marimuthu Vs. the General Manager (D and Pb) and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The petitioner was serving as Assistant Manager, State Bank of India at Avinashi during the year 1996. During that point of time, he was looking after agricultural crop loans. He was transferred to Mettupalayam Branch as Assistant Manager in July 1996. ON 15.7.1996, the Branch Manager, Avinashi Branch sent a communication to the controlling authority alleging certain irregularities in the loan sanctioned during his tenure at Avinashi Branch. One Mr. Ramakrishnan, Manager, Ganapathy Branch, on deputation, investigated the matter. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 13.2.1997. A memo was issued calling for explanation from the petitioner on 23.2.1998. The petitioner sent a detailed reply on 8.5.1998. A charge memo was issued by the Deputy General Manager, Coimbatore on 9.6.1999. The Deputy General Manager ordered enquiry on 4.8.1999. An enquiry was conducted on 25.8.1999 and the same was concluded in the month of December 1999. The enquiry officer submitt...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pusphavalli and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company, against the award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court) Panruti in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 75 of 2000, dated 24.03.2005, for awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/- together with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 75 of 2000, dated 24.03.2005, the appellant//United India Insurance Company has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the said compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/-.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:The first claimant is the wife of the deceased, the second, third and fourth claimants are children of the deceased and fifth claimant is the mother of the deceased. On 24.02.2000, the deceased and others were went to Tindivanam Town Crusher for loading ...
A.R. Safiullah Vs. the Managing Director and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
D. Murugesan, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the common order dated 25.9.2008 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the respective appellants.2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') developed a comprehensive self contained, composite scheme in three stages. Besides the scheme, it developed residential flats and plots for all categories of people. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tiruchirappalli Housing Unit, the second respondent herein, called for sealed tenders for allotment of the public purpose site at Pudukottai Neighbourhood Scheme in an extent of 39772 sq. ft. of land [as Item No. 5 (a)] and a commercial site in an extent of 3,909 sq. ft. The upset price of the properties were fixed at Rs. 83,79,943/- and Rs. 7,81,800/-. Both the appellants submitted their respective bids for separate plots and were the highest bidders in the auction. As per the auction notification, 15% of the amount offered should be deposited o...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Padmavathy and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
M. Venugopal, J.1. The Appellant/Second Respondent/Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Award dated 28.04.2004 in M.C.O.P. No. 4554 of 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal viz., II Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The Tribunal had passed an Award in the original Claim Petition O.P. No. 4554 of 2000 granting a total compensation of Rs. 10,03,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit, etc., in favour of the first Respondent/Claimant and directed the Appellant/Insurance Company to pay the Award amount within a period of two months from the date of passing of the award.3. Before the Tribunal, a common Award was passed in M.C.O.P. Nos. 4973/2001, 4561/2000 and 4554/2000. However, in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, we concerned with M.C.O.P. No. 4554/2000. A common evidence was taken and witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P1 to P27 were ...
R. Saravanan Vs. the Executive Officer and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2010
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the notification published in the Tamil News Paper in 'Thina Malar', Puducherry Edition dated 14.4.2010 issued by the respondents and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to conduct the auction on 28.4.2010 or any other date.2. Heard Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader, who appears for the respondents.3. The petitioner is a resident of the second respondent town panchayat. He claims to be a bidder in the auction which was held on 28.4.2010. Petitioner challenges the paper publication announcing the public auction as per Na.Ka. No. A2/15/2008 dated 12.4.2010 fixing the auction date as 28.4.2010. It is contended that there is a violation of Rule 52.6(4)(b)(ii) of the Municipal Manual and hence the Auction Notification and auction held is bad. According to the petitioner, by publication dated 14.4.2010, the auction was fixed for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »