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.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vs. C.Ramasamy .. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for appellant, Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for 1st respondent in AS Nos.164 to 167 of 2001 and for respondents 3 to 5 in AS No.168 of 2001 and Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for second respondent in all appeals. 2. In these five appeals, the appellant is the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode District. All these appeals were filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgments and decrees of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode made in LAOP No.14 of 1996, dated 30.4.1999. 3.The lands belonged to private respondents/claimants situated in various sub divisions in Survey Nos.227 in Attavanaipidariyur village were sought to be acquired for the purpose of constructing a depot for the then Jeeva Transport Corporation. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 13.3.1991. After conducting Section 5-A enquiry and Section 6 declaration, an Award was passed in Award No.3/1993, dat...
D.Varadharajulu. Vs. K.Narasimman, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. The Revision petitioner/Respondent/Appellant has filed these civil revision petitions as against the Common order dated 13.04.2009 in M.P.Nos.656, 657 and 659 to 664 of 2008 in R.C.A.Nos.484, 485 and 489 to 494 of 2007 dated 13.4.2009 passed by the Learned Appellate Authority viz; VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2.The Learned Appellate Authority viz., VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai while passing Common order in M.P.Nos.656, 657 and 659 to 664 of 2008 in R.C.A.Nos.484, 485 and 489 to 494 of 2007 dated 13.4.2009 has among other things observed that 'the Petitioners (Respondents 2 and 3 in Civil Revision Petitions) are the Trustees of Thiruneelakandar Trust and they are coming under the definition of Landlord under Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Petitioners are necessary parties in the Appeals. The reasons stated in the petitions are tenable. No prejudice will be caused to the Respondents herein in allowing these peti...
Hemala, and ors. Vs. the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Tamb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. Heard both sides.2. This writ petition arises out of a Special Revision (SRP.No.19 of 2001) filed by the petitioners before the Special Appellate Tribunal under Section 15 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short Act). The petitioners challenged the Order passed by the respondent dated 24.06.1997 in Ref.No.Na.Ka.SR.177/97/B in that Special Revision Petition.3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as CRP No.1908 of 2003. However, a learned Judge of this court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRP was converted into a writ petition and notice was ordered.4. Before the Tribunal, a counter affidavit dated 20.09.2001 was filed by the respondent.5. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners were as follows:a)Impugned order passed against a dead person. Total...
M/S. Kavitha Exports, Vs. M/S.Forbes Cobak Ltd., and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. This appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful defendant against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2003 made in O.S.No.6784 of 2000, on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai. 2. The following are the averments in the plaint succinctly stated:2.1. The defendant is an exporter. The first plaintiff is the shipping agent of the defendant. The defendant shipped STC 137 Cartones of Men's L/s. shirts to Gothenburg, Sweden under the bill of lading No.MA 812734 dated 30.08.1998 through the vessel Orient Independence V-123 sailed from Chennai on 16.09.1998 and arrived at Colombo on 18.09.1998 and was awaiting transshipment by another vessel, namely, Ever GloryV-79 ETA. The said vessel was scheduled to carry the cargo from Colombo to Gothenburg, Sweden. While so, due to the accident, it was detained at Singapore and hence, it could not touch Colombo.2.2. Due to some reasons, there was a delay in transshipment, as a result of which, the first plain...
R.Veluswamy .. Vs. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police (Crime ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by R.Velusamy, the sole accused in Cr.No.402 of 2005, now pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal. The criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner in the above said calendar case for alleged offences under Sections 420 and 402 IPC, is sought to be quashed on the ground that the complaint and continuation of the criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of Court. 2.The facts leading to the filing of the petition can be briefly stated as follows:-The petitioner herein is a Transport operator having a transport contract with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai. The second respondent herein is also a transport operator owning a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.KA-21-4665 and he did not have a direct contract with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, for transport of bulk quantities of LPG. As such, the petitioner and the second respondent entered into a contract between them...
Dr.P.Mohan .. Vs. the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 27.4.2006 passed by the first respondent, under which the first respondent has held that the petitioner has not proved his community status that he belongs to Kattunaicken Scheduled Tribe community by documentary evidence. 2. The affidavit filed in support of this writ petition would disclose that, according to the petitioner, he belongs to Kattunaicken Scheduled Tribe community and his close relatives also belong to the said community. The petitioner was issued with the community certificate dated 12.8.80 by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Nanguneri and another community certificate dated 6.7.90 by the Tahsildar, Radhapuram stating that he belongs to Kattunaicken Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioner applied for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon under Scheduled Tribe quota and he was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 29.4.99. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Offi...
G.P.Saraswathi, and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner Cum Competent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. Heard both sides.2. This writ petition arises out of a Special Revision (SRP.49 of 2000) filed by the petitioners before the Special Appellate Tribunal under Section 15 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (for short Act). The petitioners challenged the Order passed by the first respondent dated 15.11.1991 in S.R.A.68/91 in that Special Revision Petition.3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as CRP No.1921 of 2003. However, a learned Judge of this court opined that no Civil Revision Petition will lie as the officers whose orders under challenge were not a Court but only statutory authorities. Therefore, the CRP was converted into a writ petition and notice was ordered.4. Even before the Tribunal, a counter affidavit dated 'Nil" was filed by the respondent. The original records were also circulated for perusal by this court. An additional affidavit dated Nil (June 2010) was also filed by the p...
Kumar, and ors. Vs. State Represented by Forest Range Officer Vellore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. The revision petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.631 of 2002, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Thiruppathur, and they were convicted for the offence under Sections 36(A) & (E) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.7,500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and the sentence are to run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred this criminal revision. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 01.08.1995, at about 05.00 a.m., P.W.4, the Forest Officer on information went to the forest area at Arasanpattu alleri along with other forest officers P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. They saw the accused keeping some gunny bags underneath bush. They were surrounded. Inside the gunny bag, they found sandal woo...
N.Bhadrinathan (Died), and anr. Vs. Ind Bank Housing Limited, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2002 made in O.S.No.8709 of 1998 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai,insofar as it relates to the grant of interest at the rate of 15.5% p.a throughout and modify the same by awarding interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of recovery and allow this first appeal accordingly.2. The following are the averments in the amended plaint succinctly stated:2.1. On 22.11.1995, the first defendant availed a loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- towards housing loan for purchasing HIA A type flat at Plot No.431B, Flat G 5, Second Floor K-116, New Lotus Colony, Anna Nager East, Chennai-600 102 from the plaintiff bank and the second defendant, namely, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had alloted the house under G.O.Ms.No.2D No.478 dated 30.08.1995 in the name of the defendant. The first defendant accepted the offer of loan agreeing to deposit the title deeds relating to his pr...
Mrs.Chitra, and ors. Vs. Mr.Marappan, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. Plaintiffs in OS.No.387 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatti are the petitioners in the above civil revision petition. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit seeking a declaration that the first plaintiff is the wife and the second plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant/first respondent herein and for a consequential injunction restraining the third respondent from paying the retirement benefits to the first respondent herein. 3. Pending suit, the petitioners herein filed IA.No.715 of 2009 to subject the petitioners and the first respondent to DNA test. The said application was opposed by the first respondent herein. The Court below, on consideration of rival contentions, dismissed the said application and being aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reason assigned by the Court below i...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »