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.
M/S. Vijay Shanthi Builders Ltd., Vs. Mr. V. Sekar, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge revoking the unconditional leave granted in O.A.No.123 of 2010 vide order dated 21-04-2010. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The appellant had filed the original suit in respect of a joint development agreement dated 11-06-2008 between the appellant and the respondent in respect of the property which is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court viz., at Kondappanaickenpatty, Salem. According to this agreement, the appellant is a developer of the property which belongs to the first and second respondent. On 13-10-2009, a Power of Attorney was also executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant. The property was put in possession by the appellant and the appellant has paid certain amounts to the respondent. There were some dispute between the appellant and the respondent which was referred to a Mediator and on mediation, a Memorandum of Understanding was reduced into writing on 16-10-200...
J.Venkatesan. Vs. the Commissioner Ambattur Municipality Office of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. The petitioner had approached the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai by filing Original Application No.2065 of 2000, challenging the order of the first respondent dated 6.3.2000, a show cause notice. The said Original Application had been transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.45260 of 2006.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows:-The petitioner was appointed as NMR on 1.8.1990 and working in the office of the first respondent Municipality continuously. While so, the Commissioner of Municipal Administration has passed an order to fill up the post of sanitary Supervisor in his order No.M.M.No.50086/99/J-3 dated 21.7.1999. Subsequently, in view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, the first respondent herein has appointed the petitioner, being the senior most NMR and in view of the appointment made by the first respondent, the petitioner also j...
P.S.Maheswari ... Vs. the Secretary to the Government, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to forbear the respondents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Land situated in Thiruporur Panchayat, Chengalput Taluk, Kancheepuram District.2. Notice of motion was ordered. The fifth respondent has filed an affidavit to implead him as a party stating as follows: "3.I submit that the 4th Respondent in the Writ Petition has proposed to construct a 100 MLD Seawater Desalination Plant near Nemmeli in the East Coast Road and lay transmission mains for conveying the product water to the Chennai City distribution system. The pipelines are being laid in the Right of Way (RoW) of the East Coast Road, after 4th Respondent in the writ petition obtained necessary permission from the petitioner/5th Respondent in this regard. Since the lands in S.No.99/8C1A1 and S.No.102 of Muttukadu Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, which are covered by the prayer in the writ petit...
M/S. Janson Exports Vs. Cce, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
Heard the learned SDR. No one is present on behalf of the appellants despite notice. There is also no adjournment request. As such, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution....
M/S. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
Heard both sides. Both sides confirm that this is not a case of either delayed payment of service tax or failure to pay service tax. On the other hand, the service tax was paid in excess during the month of March 2007 which has been adjusted towards the service tax liability for the subsequent months. In any way the appellants have paid tax in advance. As such, they cannot be penalized under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 which applies to cases of failure to pay service tax. Hence the penalty imposed under Section 76 is set aside. 2. As regards the penalty of Rs.1,000/- imposed under Section 77, the learned consultant states that the appellants are not pressing their appeal. Hence the same is confirmed. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms....
S.Shankar .. Vs. S.Manavalan, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. This appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2006 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.3190 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Court of Small Causes), Chennai. 2.Claimant is the appellant and the brief facts of the case are as follows:On 28.02.2004 at about 17.30 hours, when the appellant/claimant, tailor by profession, was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 01 E 3320 in East Coast Road from south to north, near Vettuvankeni, the tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN 10 B 9090 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and hit against the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant's vehicle dashed against another motor cycle and the lorry finally dashed against the shop. In the accident, the claimant sustained multifarious fractures and injuries all over the body. The claimant was initially admitted to Malar Hospital, Adyar, Chennai and thereafter he was shifted to Government General Hospita...
P.Subramani .. Vs. Kamalammal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.6.2009, made in A.S.No.90 of 2005, on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.3.2005, made in O.S.No.1007 of 1993, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram. 2. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff Arumuga Kounder, praying for a judgment and decree declaring the plaintiffs title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents from in any way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff and for costs. After the death of the plaintiff Arumuga Kounder his legal heir had been added, as the second plaintiff in the suit. 3. It had been submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit properties had belonged to one Perumal Kounder, Son of Narayana Kounder, who had purchased the properties from one Adhi Narasaiyya...
C.Velu @ Venkatesalam, and ors. Vs. S.Kandasamy Chettiar(Died), and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 6.1.2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sangagiri, in REA No.185 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed by the judgment debtors.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition as well as C.M.P.No.1431 of 2008 would run thus:(i) The respondents herein filed the suit O.S.No.393 of 1990 so as to bring the mortgaged property belonging to the revision petitioners for sale. The preliminary decree was passed and subsequently, final decree also was passed.(ii) Thereafter, REP.No.4 of 2003 was filed before the executing Court so as to bring the mortgaged property for sale.(iii) While so, the lower Court in the process of conducting the sale, on seeing that the revision petitioners/judgment debtors did not file any counter, passed order in the REA No.136 of 2004 filed by the R4 herein, who is one of the decree holders under Order 21 Rule 72(1) and 72(A) seeking permis...
P.Periyasamy. Vs. the Superintendent of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.1871 of 2000 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No. 45187 of 2006. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 12.05.1976 and he was promoted to the post of Constable Grade I in the year 1993-1994. After completion of five years of service in Grade I Police Constable, he should have been upgraded to the post of Head Constable. While the petitioner was serving, a charge memo was issued by the respondent. After receiving the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the petitioner has not denied the charges leveled against him and specifically mentioned that the immovable property in respect of Mortgage Deed as executed by the family members along with the petitioner does not fall under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Particularly, in his explanation ...
Sridhar Babu ... Vs. Muthulakshmi, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. The revision petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.143/2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam.2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for a Judgment and decree of mandatory injunction directing the removal of the construction put up by the defendants and for consequential permanent injunction. The defendants had filed written statement and the suit was dismissed and on appeal at the instance of the first respondent, the matter was remanded and is pending trail. 3. During the pendency of the suit on remand, the first respondent filed I.A.No.847/2005 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for including the measurements of the construction, which was sought to be removed by a decree of mandatory injunction. According to the first respondent, she was not aware of the exact measurement of the construction put up and the measurements came to her knowledge only after the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed in the matter, inspected the property and submitted hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »