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.Patel Roadways Ltd., Vs. Manali Petrochemical Ltd., and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. Heard the arguments of Mr.T.D.Selvam Babu, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the second respondent.2. This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.3208 of 2001, dated 31.3.2003 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.IV), Chennai. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.3208 of 2001. The suit was filed by respondents against the appellant for recovery of sum of Rs.5, 31,012/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of payment and for costs. 3. The appellant and both respondents are public limited companies. The firs respondent had dispatched 28 drums of three different varieties of chemicals/products to M/s.Hindustan Level Ltd., Bangalore against the purchase order, dated 12.3.1998. The goods were entrusted to the appellant for safe carriage and delivery at Chennai under Lorr...
Dr.Nedunchezhiyan Engineering College, Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. These writ petitions came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Honble Chief Justice vide order dated 21.07.2010.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.3. The petitioners are running educational institutions located under the third respondent Thozhudur Panchayat and Marungur Panchayat respectively. The prayer of the petitioners is to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 05.03.2008 in G.O.Ms.38 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-1) Department and consequential orders of the third respondent dated 17.04.2009 and 25.02.2009 respectively and quash the same.4. The learned counsel drew inspiration from the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 to contend that imparting education cannot be done...
S.Amal Antony ... Vs. the Director of Elementary, Education of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.30892/EK1/97(1), dated 04.02.1999.2. When the petitioner was serving as Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, he was issued with a charge memo dated 08.08.1997 for the charges having found in a drunken mood and also assaulted a retired teacher. The petitioner, after receiving the charge memo, submitted his explanation. After the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was ordered and finally, the enquiry officer found him guilty on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer and again, further representation also submitted by the petitioner, but the same was also not accepted. Therefore, he was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the present OA came to be filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner su...
Senior Medical Officer, and ors. Vs. Ayammal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgement and Decree, dated 17.08.2005, made in A.S.No.84 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvarur, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 08.04.2004, made in O.S.No.73 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi. 2. The defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.73 of 2004, on the file of District Munsif Court, Mannargudi, are the appellants in the present Second Appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein. The plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.73 of 2004, praying for damages, for having conceived and for having given birth to a female child, on 22.03.2000, inspite of tubectomy operation having been performed on her, on 27.11.1995. The plaintiff had stated that she had given birth to four children out of the wedlock with her husband, Chellayan. In view of the general request made by the Government of Tamilnadu, through the media and by other means, requesting the persons to under...
S.Radha .. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Govt. Publ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. After the petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman Grade-III (Junior Drafting Officer) on 23rd Feb., 1980, through employment exchange, she continued to work till 5th June, 1983. Subsequently, the Chief Engineer, 2nd respondent herein, appointed the petitioner temporarily as Draughting Officer (Draughtsman Grade-II) on 6th Sept., 1983. Accordingly, the petitioner also joined duty on 6th Oct., 1983. Thereafter, for want of vacancy, she was reverted back on 31st Oct., 1983, to the post of Junior Draughting Officer. However, she was promoted as Draughting Officer on 31st March, 1984 and she was posted to work in the Estate Officer, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore on deputation. On her promotion, she joined duty on 7th May, 1984 as Draughting Officer. Later on, the petitioner made a written request dated 11th Jan., 1989, to the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Pollachi, to regularise her services as Draughting Officer. The 3rd respondent, by issuing order ...
M/S.Bombay Motor House, a Partnership Firm, and anr. Vs. C.K.Sundaram( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in R.C.A.No.74 of 2007, confirming the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, in RCOP No.17 of 2000, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(a) The deceased C.K.Sundaram filed the RCOP No.17 of 2000 before the II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, seeking eviction of the revision petitioners/tenants herein by invoking Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Counter was filed by the revision petitioners/tenants herein. Whereupon enquiry was conducted. (b) On the side of the landlords, the P4 therein examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of the tenants, R2 therein examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to...
Hajee M.S.Farook .. Vs. the Board of Trustee of Makkan Trust,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. The second appeal has been filed against the Judgment and decree, dated 1.8.2007, made in A.S.No.172 of 2006, on the file of the 1st Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 15.9.2005, made in O.S.No.3751 of 2002, on the file of the XVIIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.3751 of 2002, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent herein. The plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.3751 of 2002, praying for a decree for ejecting the defendant from the suit premises and for costs. 3. It has been stated that the plaintiff trust is a public wakf, which is a public trust, managed by a board of trustees, as per the scheme decree, dated 27.4.1954, passed in C.S.No.43 of 1951, on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. According to the scheme decree, P.A.G.Hassain Moulana had been appointed as a hereditary trustee of the wakf, by an order of the High C...
The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vs. M.Siv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
1. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS), Ms.Shanmuga Priya for Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 in A.S.No.1209 of 2001, Mr.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for first respondent in A.S.No.1210 of 2001 and Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri. Pleadings set was printed and original records were summons and they were perused. 2. The appellant is the Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri. The two appeal suits are filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri in LAOP Nos.58 and 59 of 1988,dated 15.12.1999. The land of the private respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of running a Motel to be run by the fifth respondent Annai Sathya Transport Corporation (presently amalgamated with Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.).3. In A.S.No.1209 of 2001, the clai...
Trident Services Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) and the Official Liquidato ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
The Court: This Company was wound up on 25th August, 2008. Although the Official Liquidator has taken custody of its assets and other properties theoretically, it is said by him that the company has virtually no assets. Neither is there any claim by any creditor. So I do not think this kind of a liquidation proceeding should engage much time of the Court. In any event a complaint petition has been taken out against the accused nos. 1 and 3. From the records I find that both of them had resigned from their offices as directors much before the company went into liquidation. Section 454(2) requires statement of affairs to be filed by persons who at the relevant date were in-charge of the affairs of the company. Relevant date is defined in 454(8) as the date of winding up. The duty to inform the Registrar of Companies of the resignation of directors is upon the Board as provided in Section 303(2) of the Companies Act 1956. The resigning directors have no obligation to inform the Registrar ...
Shri Kumaravel Spinners Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2010
This appeal has been coming up for regular hearing time to time since Feb-10 and has been adjourned repeatedly at the request of the assessees. Notice of today’s hearing has been returned undelivered. It is clear from the above that the assessees are not interested in pursuing the matter. The appeal is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution....
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »