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.
Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2010
Heard both sides. The impugned order was passed following the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Thane-I Vs Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. [2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom.)]. The present miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake points out that subsequently, the law has been amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2010. Taking note of the retrospective change made by the Act of Parliament and with the consent of both sides, the impugned order of the Tribunal is modified and the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh decision taking into account the retrospectively amended provisions of the law. The MA (ROM) is allowed and the appeal is remanded in the above terms....
Jeyabal Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2010
1. These criminal appeals are directed against the judgement of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Dindigul made in Sessions Case No.64 of 2004, finding both the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC and imposing punishment of life imprisonment on both the accused along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.2.The appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.124 of 2005, is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.112 of 2007, is the second accused. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.124 of 2005, viz., Jayabal, S/o. Muthu Gounder, died on 10.03.2007 in Government Rajaji General Hospital, Madurai and to substantiate the same, the death certificate issued by the Madurai Corporation dated 17.03.2011 has been produced before this Court. Accordingly, by virtue of the death of the first accused, who is the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.124 of 2005, the said criminal appeal stands abat...
Al.Ar. and St.Chantram Vs. Velani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2010
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to direct the learned District Munsif, Thiruvadanai to expedite the Original Suit in O.S.No.65 of 2006 and dispose of the same with the time frame fixed by this court.2.The short facts of the case are as follows:-The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2006 before the District Munsif Court, Tiruvadanai, for declaration and injunction. The said suit was pending on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvadanai, from 2006 to till date. The plaintiff is a senior citizen aged about 83 years. There is no progress in the said suit. Under the circumstances, the above civil revision petition has been filed for direction to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both parties are ready to co-operate before the learned Judge for speedy trial. Now, the plaintiff physical condition is also very weak. The plaintiff's evidence was over as early as 16.09.20...
M/S. Chennai Covai Logistics, and ors. Vs. S.Egyasamy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. The petitioners herein are the accused in S.T.R.No.581 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem and they are facing charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the complainant examining his witnesses, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Afterwards, the evidence on the side of the defence was closed and the arguments of both sides were heard and the case was posted for Judgment on 08.06.2010. On 08.06.2010, the learned Magistrate had reopened the case for further examination of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and adjourned the case to 11.06.2010. Aggrieved by the above same, the petitioners herein have preferred this Criminal Revision. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after the evidence on the side of the defence was over and also after hearing the arguments of both sides, reopening the case for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not permissible in law and it would...
P.Arumugam .. Vs. A.Rani, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. The revision petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed an application in M.C.No.54 of 2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned First Additional Family Judge, Chennai, claiming maintenance. Pending the said application, the respondents 1 and 2 herein have also filed a petition in M.P.No.560 of 2009 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Family Court Judge had allowed the said petition directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly interim maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- to each of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred this Criminal Revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, willfully deserted the petitioner 25 years ago and she had eloped with one person and she was living with him. After so many years, the first respondent had chosen to file a petiti...
Thamizhthendral Thiru.Vi.Ka Aided Middle School, Vs. the District Elem ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. The writ petition is filed against the order of the first respondent dated Nil 1.2010 signed by the first respondent on 23.01.2010 in his proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.440/B5/2010 thereby revoking the approval granted for the appointment of Thiru.M.Gopi, as Physical Education teacher and Tmt. P.Gowri as Sewing mistress in the vacancy arising due to the retirement of M.Radhakrishan as Physical Education teacher on 31.08.2009 and Tmt. Vijaya as Sewing mistress on 31.10.2009 in the petitioner's school and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner school was commenced during 1946 and is well serving to cater the needs of Children of poor families in and around locality of Ranipet and Pinchi and has earned good reputation of one of the best schools in the area. The school has Ist standard to VIIIth standard classes having 216 students and sanctioned strength of Head Master - 1, B.T.Assistant - 2, Tamil teacher -1, Secondary Grade - 3, Sewing mistress 1 and Physical Education teacher 1. The sch...
P.Selvamani ... Vs. the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. The petitioner joined as Record Clerk in the respondent Corporation on 12.12.1979. The post of Record Clerk comes under Miscellaneous Group under the rules framed by the Board of the respondent Corporation. On completion of six years of service, the petitioner was re-designated as Junior Assistant by granting first review benefit under Longevity Pay Scheme. Thereafter, he was granted second review benefit under Longevity Pay Scheme as Assistant, on completion of eight years of service as Junior Assistant. He is entitled to third review benefit under Longevity Pay Scheme as Senior Assistant, on completion of ten years of service as Assistant. However, the same was not granted to him. Further, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent, that comes under Supervisory Group, if he has been re-designated as Senior Assistant. Since he was not given the third review benefit with effect from 01.05.2004, on completion of 10 years o...
R. Balagangatharan .. Vs. the District Collector, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for the issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a secondary Grade Teacher on regular basis with effect from 03.01.2002, the date on which the petitioner's junior Mr.Sheik Alludin was appointed on time scale of pay with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, continuous seniority.2. The petitioner is native of Karur District. After passing Higher Secondary Course, he obtained a Diploma in Teacher Training and registered his name in the employment exchange of Karur on 12.10.1999 for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher [SGT] and he was assigned Registration Number 3961 of 1999 and later corrected as 4079 of 1999. In the year 2000-01 the department took a decision to fill up vacancies in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in each district in the Government and Panchayat Union Schools after getting sponsorship from the employment exchange concerned. The petitioner's name was not sponsored based on the e...
C.Venkatesh, and ors. Vs. M/S Tip Top Southern Bonanza, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 19.12.2005, passed in R.C.A.No.111 of 2004 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore), confirming the order dated 28.06.2004 passed in RCOP No.42 of 2000 by the learned Rent Controller (I Addl. District Munsif Court), this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The revision petitioners herein being the landlords filed RCOP No.42 of 2000 for fixation for fair rent. On the side of the landlords, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the tenants, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked. Exs.C1 to C4 were marked as Court documents. Ultimately, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent from Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) per month to Rs.35,125/- (Rupees thirty five thousand one hundred and twenty five o...
M.M.Saleem ... Vs. R.Praveen Kumar Reddy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. This revision is by the Judgment-debtor/respondent in E.P.No.1805/2002 on the file by the IX Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The respondent/decree-holder had filed O.S.No.11006/1996 for recovery of money and the suit was decreed by Judgment and decree dated 12.03.2002 and to realise the decree amount, the respondent filed E.P.No.1805/2002 and sought the assistance of the Court for arrest and detention of the Judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 37 & 38 CPC. The petitioner/Judgment-debtor filed a counter in the execution petition stating that he has not been served with the copy of the means affidavit filed along with the execution petition and that it is mandatory on the part of the decree-holder to serve copy of such affidavit. It was further stated that his business has deteriorated and he is penniless and his mother is taking care of his family from the pension received by her. The Execution Court by its order dated 09.03.2004, ordered arrest of the petitioner. The Ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »