Chennai Court July 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.
Philip Johnson ... Vs. the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed to set aside the order of the second respondent dated 19.03.2010 in his letter No.66835/Estt.(DP)/A1/2005 in and under which the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2009 for reconsidering the earlier order of his removal from the service issued by the first respondent and for consequential settlement of pension benefits is rejected by the second respondent. 3. The petitioner was during the relevant point of time working as Executive Engineer in RWS Division, Thiruvallur. While so, the petitioner was on 15.02.1991 placed under suspension for his alleged involvement in the criminal case lodged by Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption for the alleged offences under Section 120-B r/w 167, 409, 420 and Section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. The criminal prosecution culminated in SC.No.4 of 1993 on the file of Special-cum-Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Che...
Central Warehousing Corporation, a Government of IndiA. Vs. Chitlapakk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 26.10.2004, made in A.S.No.52 of 2003, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 11.3.2003, made in O.S.No.77 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. 2. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.77 of 2000, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendant in the said suit is the respondent herein. 3. It has been stated that the plaintiff is a Government of India undertaking, having its building in the schedule mentioned properties, within the limits of the defendant Town Panchayat. The defendant Town Panchayat has been assessing the building for levying building tax. There are 22 house tax assessments levied by the defendant Town Panchayat, in respect of the plaintiff Corporation relating to which the suit had been filed. 4. It has been stated that the plaintiff Corporation has been exempted, under the Tamil Nadu Building...
M/S.Selva Ganapathy Rice Mill, Vs. the Deputy General Manager, and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
O R D E R1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Debt Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, third respondent herein, in his proceedings No.R.P.No.25/06 in DRC.No.24/06, dated 20.12.2006 and to quash the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is a partnership firm and the writ petition has been filed by its managing partner. The petitioner firm running a rice mill in the name and style of M/s.Selva Ganapathy Rice Mill at Kangayam, Erode District. In order to improve the rice mill business, the firm approached the State Bank of India, Kangayam Branch and obtained loan by furnishing immovable property as security. Rs.10, 50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- have been sanctioned towards the term loan and working capital. 3. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was subsequently ...
Tamil Nad Mercantile Bank Limited. Vs. Mr.T.R.Vasanth, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. The first respondent-Proprietor had availed loan facilities from the petitioner herein and the three others, Tmt.Andalammal (since deceased), Thiru B.P.Kulasekaran and Thiru T.P.Ramanujulu stood as guarantors for the due repayment of the said loan. In view of the default committed by the first respondent herein, the petitioner-bank initiated recovery proceedings by filing an application in O.A.No.191 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.25.60 lakhs. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that he is not liable to pay the sum as claimed and the interest claimed is also exorbitant and excessive and it is also against the rules in force. 3. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, on taking into consideration the pleadings and the documentary evidence, had issued a recovery certificate in favour of the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.25.60 lakhs together with subsequent interest at the rate of 16.25% per annum and...
K.R.Pannerselvam. Vs. VasanthA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, dated 25.9.2006, made in A.S.No.13 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 15.9.2005, made in O.S.No.660 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai. 2. The defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.660 of 1998, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein. The plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.660 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai, praying for a judgment and decree, for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant and for damages for its use and occupation by the defendant. 3. The plaintiff had stated that the suit property was, originally, owned by one Alamelu Ammal, Wife of Rajaram. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Alamelu Ammal,...
K.Palaniappan. Vs. Ravichandran.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 1.8.2008, made in W.P.No.20091 of 2006.2. This Court, by its order, dated 1.8.2008, made in W.P.No.20091 of 2006, had passed the following order:"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner has stated that he is a retired Headmaster. He had retired while he was serving as a Headmaster at Aringar Anna Municipal Middle School, Kuttapalli Colony, Tiruchengode, Salem District. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Higher Grade Teacher in the District Board, Salem, on 1.10.59. On 15.7.60, he was appointed as a Secondary Grade Elementary School Headmaster. On 1.6.84, he was appointed as a Middle School Secondary Grade Headmaster. He had obtained the qualification of Tamil Pandit, in the year 1967. He had passed his Ba...
The Director of Employment and Training, Guindy, Vs. I.C.W.S. Industri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. Both the writ appeals raise the question as to whether candidates admitted in the first respondent Industrial Training Institute during the academic years 1992-94, 1993-1995, 1994-1996 and 1995-1997 are entitled to issuance of National Trade Certificates for the course of "Wireman Trade" in respect of which no affiliation was granted by the National Council for Vocational Training (in short 'NCVT').2.Appendix XIX of the Training Manual for ITIs and ITCs provides the procedure for starting New Institutes/Trades. The procedure relating to the private institutes, which is relevant to the issue in question, reads as follows:- "III. Procedure for Starting New Institutes/Trades(a)For Private Institutes.(i) State Director In-charge of the Craftsmen Training Scheme will notify in the leading newspapers of the State to receive particulars in the prescribed proforma (Annexure I) from the agency seeking permission to start training on the pattern of the Craftsmen Training Scheme from the Augus...
Arulmigu Ponnambala Swamigal Matt. Vs. the Thashildar, Chengalpet Talu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The order impugned herein is passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (herein after referred to as 'Act') by the first respondent in and under which the petitioner is directed to vacate the property in question within 15 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. 3. It is not in dispute that the official respondents have by treating the property as public property initiated eviction proceedings under the relevant provision of the Act and the proceedings are commenced by issuing notice under Section 7 and the same is followed by eviction order under Section 6. Section 7 notice dated 10.03.2010 and Section 6 order of eviction dated 29.03.2010 are enclosed at pages 24 and 25, 27 and 28 respectively in the typeset of papers filed by the petitioners. The mode of service of notice under Section 7 and the eviction order under Section 6 are admittedly not by way of effective personal service...
M/S. Lucky Plastics and Chemicals Company Limited. Vs. He Appellate As ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the first respondent/The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)V, Kancheepuram, dated 28.11.2006 made in M.P. No.93 of 2006, to quash the same and to further direct the first respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment order of the second respondent dated 27.06.2006.3. The brief facts relevant herein are that the petitioner was works contractor and was assessee under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner has for the assessment year 2004-2005 filed the return reporting taxable turnover of Rs.2,23,59,709/- consisting of works contract sales turnover of grid and sales turn over of PVC Board and PVC tiles. The assessment return was accepted by the authority concerned with due acknowledgment dated 14.04.2004. The second respondent has thereafter issued notice on 10.03.2006 thereby, intimating ...
N. Vanathi Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2010
1. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the Thasildhar, Karur / the third respondent herein, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.2. The case of the petitioner is that Periyasamy Gounder was the owner of the property, measuring 10.96 acres situated at S.No.532/1 and 532/3, Authoor Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District. One Janaki Ammal, the daughter of the sister of Periyasamy Gounder's first wife was adopted by him.3. Periyasamy Gounder executed a registered Settlement Deed dated 27.12.1958, in favour of his adopted daughter and since then, Janaki Ammal is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter, Periyasamy Gounder married one Saraswathi as his second wife.4. 2.11 acres of land out of 10.96 acres of land, referred to above, was acquired by the Highways Department, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »