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.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd., and ors. Vs. M.Nayeem ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. All the appeals arise out of the same award. By consent of all the parties, all the appeals are taken up together and a common award is passed.2. The claimants have filed appeal in CMA No.No.1419 of 2007 as against the order challenging the award on the ground that 40% liability is fixed on the deceased himself and 60% liability is fixed on the insurance company. It is mainly contended that there was no mistake on the part of the deceased person as he was driving the vehicle in the proper side of the road, on the right hand corner whereas the vehicle which was coming on the opposite side namely the Bus had crossed the meridian and came on the extreme side of the right which is not the correct side they should be traveling. Under those circumstances, fixing of 40% liability on the part of the deceased was not correct and therefore they have preferred the appeal and also as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-, the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.4,24,000/-, they have restricted ...
K.Ramamurthy .. Vs. the District Collector Vellore District Vellore. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed for issuing appropriate direction to the third respondent to effect mutation in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land measuring an extent of 52.5 cents comprised in Survey No.75/6A of Mettuchakarai Kuppam Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Vellore District, as per the order of the 3rd respondent dated 28.07.2008.3. The facts which remain undisputed are that the land in question originally belonged to the petitioner's father and the land was sought to be acquired and assigned to Harijan Welfare Scheme during 1989. The same was challenged by his father in W.P. No.5182 of 1989 and the writ petition was after due contest allowed by order dated 14.02.1990 and the acquisition proceedings was dropped in respect of the land in question. Aggrieved against the same, the acquisition officer preferred W.A. No. 1491 of 1991. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has by order ...
M.Raji Gounder, and anr. Vs. K.Chalapathy Babu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 05.01.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.80 and 81 of 2006 in O.S.No.6 of 2003 by the learned District Munsif Court at Tirupattur, Vellore District, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two revisions would run thus:(i) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following relief:VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED(ii) Ex parte decree was passed as against the revision petitioners/defendants. Subsequently, E.P. was filed by way of enforcing the ex parte decree. On receipt of the E.P. notice on 10.09.2004, the revision petitioners/defendants entered appearance in the E.P. However, only on 31.01.2006, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed, to get the delay of 1062 days condoned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC so as to get the ex parte decree dated 04.02.2003 set aside. Afte...
E.Gnanaprakasam. Vs. the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat Vellore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. The petitioner was employed as a Junior Engineer in Town Panchayat under the control of first respondent. While so, he was transferred to Attur Municipality during February 2002. He was not paid salary for the service rendered in the Town Panchayat for the period from 01.04.2000 to 12.02.2002. 2.It is now stated that the first respondent sent a proposal to the fifth respondent claiming Rs.2,40,369/- as salary for the period from 01.04.2000 to 12.02.2002. The fifth respondent has to approve the proposal and to disburse the salary to the petitioner. 3.From 29.02.2002 to June 2005, the petitioner served in Attur Municipality on transfer from the Town Panchayat. In Attur Municipality, he was paid only the minimum pay on the ground that the service particulars were not received from the first respondent. 4.It is now stated that after the petitioner was transferred from Attur Municipality to Salem Municipality, the first respondent sent the service particulars vide proceedings dated 09.09...
The Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors. Vs. Tata Tea Limited, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. This Appeal arises out of the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 7.8.2000 allowing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.18047 of 1993 thereby declaring that the 1st Respondent need not obtain any permit, consent or licence from the State Government or any of its authorities for felling/transporting or using as fuel trees grown by them in their own estates/plantations for the manufacture of tea or domestic use in connection with the tea industry. The learned single Judge negatived the prayer to declare Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 as unconstitutional and void.2. The brief facts are that the 1st Respondent Company is having Pachaimallai, Pannimade, Uralikal, Velonie and Valparai estates situated in the Anamallais hills in Valparai taluk, Coimbatore District. All these estates of the 1st Respondent except Valparai estate have also their respective tea factories for processing the tea leaf harvested from the estates and the Valparai estate has a coff...
P.Vellaisamy. Vs. the Inspector General of Prisons, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. The Writ Petition has been listed today under the caption "for dismissal", since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 27.07.2010. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. ...
P.PadmA. Vs. the Vice-chancellor Anna University , and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are common, by consent, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.2. The prayer in all these Writ Petitions are for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated 20.2.2010, whereby the petitioners were prevented from continuing the fourth semester programme of M.E./M.Tech degree during 2009-2010 and permitted to continue IV Smester Programme during the even semester 2010-2011.3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are all Engineering Graduates having completed their B.E./B.Tech course and they have joined the faculty of various private Engineering Colleges in the State as Lecturers to teach the undergraduate Engineering students in such colleges. While they were functioning as Lecturers, they have simultaneously enrolled themselves for full time M.E./M.Tech Post Graduate programme either in the College where they were working as Lecturers or in some other private ...
S.T.Chandrasekaran . Vs. State by the Inspector of Police Rural Police ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.152 of 2010 pending on the file of the respondent police. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner informs that he had preferred a complaint on 23.03.2010 to the respondent informing of various wrong doings by the defacto complainant and persons associated with him, which had been registered in C.S.R.No.34 of 2010. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had sent further representations on 30.03.2010 and 01.04.2010 to the District Collector as also to the Superintendent of Police of the District. In such representations, it was informed that the defacto complainant party had threatened to array the petitioner as accused by foisting false cases. It is in such circumstances that the defacto complainant had preferred a complaint informing of offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC on 01.04.2010 and in relation to an alleged occurrence on 27.03.2010. Learned counsel would contend that the defacto complainant...
Sudha Devi ... Vs. M.Lalitha ....
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order 23.7.2009 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority(VIII Small Causes Court) Chennai, in R.C.A.No.581 of 2007 confirming the order dated 14.6.2007 passed by the XII Judge, Court of Small Cause, Chennai, in RCOP No.255 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenant.2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(a) The respondent/landlady filed the RCOP No.255 of 2007 invoking Sections 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii), 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,(herein after referred to as the 'Act' for short) on the following grounds: (i) The tenant used the premises concerned for a purpose otherthan that for which it was leased;(ii) The tenant committed the acts of waste;(iii) The tenant committed 'wilful default' in paying the rents;(iv) The premises concerned is required for the 'personal...
The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Collector, Vs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the appeallant, Mr.T.K.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for Railways.2. These two appeals were filed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Special Tahsildar, Tindivanam challenging the award passed by the Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam in L.A.O.P.No.27 and 28 of 2004. The Court below by a common judgment dated 22.02.2006 upheld the claim made by the claimants and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.ft. together with other statutory dues.3. The lands of the respondents/claimants are situated in Kidangal Village coming within and very close to the Tindivanam Municipality. The lands of the respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of conversion of Meter Gauge Railway line into Broad Gauge Railway line going from Chennai to Trichy.4. Section 4(1) notification was issued by G.O.Ms.No.51, Transport Department dated 19.04.2000. Aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »