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.
Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms). Vs. District Revenue Officer, ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. The above said suit in CS.No.1036/2005 was filed by the Respondent/plaintiff for a judgement and decree against the applicants/defendants, directing them to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property, to pay a sum of Rs.72,00,000/- to the Plaintiff towards damages for occupation of the suit property for the period from 5.12.2002 to 4.12.2005, to pay the future damages at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit until the delivery of vacant possession of the suit property, to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount payable towards damages and for costs of the suit.2. The above said applications are filed by the Defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit respectively to condone the delay of 1422 days and 1467 days in filing the Written Statement.3. The reasons given by the applicant/1st Defendant are that the Written Statement though prepared as early as in January 2006 could not be filed, as it was misplaced and that despite th...
P.Rangaswamy ... Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.1454 of 2000 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.41449 of 2006. 2.The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the Coimbatore District Armed Reserve on 19.04.1977 and he was transferred to Taluk Police in the year 1988. The petitioner was issued with a charge under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A;) Rules for highly indisciplinary conduct in sending a telegram from Jalandhar on 09.06.1999 at 20.40 hours to the Collector of Coimbatore, making false allegations against his superior stating that he was deputed to Jalandhar without providing feeding allowance. In view of the proceedings initiated under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A;) Rules, an oral enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. In the said enquiry, on the side of the prosecution, seven witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked and the petitioner cross examined the prosecution wi...
Chandrasekar .. Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Kamanaickenp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C. No. 60 of 2005 on the file of learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Palladam. He was convicted for offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. For the offence under Section 498(A), he was sentenced to undergo six months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month SI, for the offence under Section 406 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo six months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month SI and for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, he was sentenced to undergo three months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month SI. The said convictions were confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A. No. 216 of 2007 dated 28.11.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision petition.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W...
S.Jothilingam. Vs. M.Rajkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 5.3.2008 passed by the District Munsif, Arani, Thiruvannamalai in I.A.Nos.621 & 622 of 2007 in O.S.Nos.274 and 281 of 2004, these civil revision petitions are focused.2. The facts in nutshell would run thus:The respondent herein filed the suits O.S.Nos.274 and 281 of 2004 as against one and the same defendant, who happened to be the revision petitioner herein, for recovery of money. The revision petitioner/defendant entered appearance in both the suits. Subsequently, he remained absent whereupon ex-parte decrees were also passed. Thereafter, I.A.Nos.621 and 622 of 2007 were filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to get the ex-parte decrees set aside and they were set aside subject to the condition that half of the decreetal amount under each of the decrees shall be deposited by the revision petitioner/defendant.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders these revisions have been filed by the defendant on the main ground that the condition i...
Mrs.Jayanthi Ramesh .... Vs. M.K.Nilofar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 22.4.2010 passed by the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.502 of 2009 , confirming the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in M.P.No.514 of 2009 in R.C.O.P.2575 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focussed at the instance of the tenant.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(i) The respondent herein filed the R.C.O.P.No.2575 of 2008 seeking the following relief:"to pass an order of eviction against the respondent directing her to quit and deliver vacant possession of the said flat more fully described in the schedule hereunder." (extracted as such)(ii) Whereupon notice was taken to the tenant by the landlord, as evidenced by the lower Court's observation in paragraph No.6 of the order, but the same was returned as 'locked, affixed'. The RPAD sent through Court also was returned as I....
M/S.Shri Shakambari Exports. Vs. the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. Since, the issue involved in all the three writ petitions are identical and the petitioner in all the three writ petitioner is same proprietorship concern, the writ petitions are taken up for disposal together.3. The prayer in all the three writ petitions are for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent invoking the Bank Guarantee given by the petitioner as against the advance licenses issued to the petitioner.4. The facts in writ petition No.1647/2003 would suffice for disposal of all the three writ petitions. The petitioner is an exporter and was granted three advance licenses for import of 2,14,268.350kgs of stainless steel without payment of duty with a corresponding obligation to manufacture and export of 1,61,004.700 kgs of stainless steel utensils. According to the petitioner, they have completed 90% of the export obligation and also applied for extensio...
R.Pattivinayagam, and ors. Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Vadavalli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2010
1. The petitioners seek quash of proceedings pending in C.C.No.356 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore.2.On a complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent, case in Crime No.137 of 2007 has been registered informing that the petitioners herein had entered into a criminal conspiracy towards usruping the properties belonging to the complainant, had on 11.03.2007 prevented the complainant from entering into his property and committed offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating by fabricating false documents and using the same as genuine. On investigation, the final report has been filed against the three petitioners herein for offence under Sections 120(b), 341, 406, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 and 506(ii) IPC.3.In support of the quash petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case came to be registered by the 1st respondent on the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, and on a co...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›