Chennai Court August 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.
Shanthi. Vs. the District Magistrate, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. This petition is brought forth by the wife of the detenu challenging the order of the first respondent in C.M.P. No.5/B.L.A./C2/2010 dated 8.3.2010, whereby the detenu Uthaman was ordered to be detained as a Bootlegger under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in four adverse cases viz. (i) Attur P.E.W. Crime No.718/08 for the offence under Section 4(1)(a) of TNP Act; (ii) Attur P.E.W. Cr.No.187/2009 for the offence under Section 4(1)(i) of TNP Act; (iii)Attur P.E.W. Cr.No.1087/09 for the offence under Section 4(1)(aaa) of TNP Act and (4) Attur P.E.W. Cr.No.1747/09 for the offence under Section 4(1)(aa) of TNP Act and the ground case in Crime No.67 of 2010 registered by Attur Prohibition Enforcement Wi...
J.Senthilkumar. Vs. the Special Chief Engineer, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the tender notification dated 05.05.2010 of the first respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to furnish tender forms to the petitioner in order to enable him to participate in the tender relating to Highway No.209 for the distance mentioned in the above said notification. 2.The petitioner states that he is a road contractor by profession and he is engaged in this business for several years. He is a regular participant in all the auctions and he has been regularly awarded the road contracts.3.The petitioner further states that the first respondent issued a tender notification in the local newspaper on 05.05.2010 calling for tenders from the general public for the work of re-laying of roads in National Highway No.209 for the distance mentioned therein. The project cost is Rs.790 Lakhs. It is stated that the tender forms could be collected from the office of the second respondent, on submitting a demand draft drawn ...
D.Krishnamurthy. Vs. Arulmighu Srinivasa Perumal Koil Egmore,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.2.2007, made in A.S.No.90 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track No.II, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 2.3.2005, made in O.S.No.417 of 1982, on the file of the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.2. The defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.417 of 1982, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein. The suit, in O.S.No.417 of 1982, had been filed praying for a decree directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, and for costs.3. It has been stated that the plaintiff temple is the sole and absolute owner of a portion of a vacant site at No.881, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai, measuring about 1000 sq.ft., comprised in R.S.No.28. The said property had been let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.42/-, by way of a registered lease agreement executed, on 22....
Jeevan Singh @ Lambu, and anr. Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Con ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.99 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Act cases, Additional Sessions Court, Coimbatore and they have filed an application before the trial Court under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge, the petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition before this Court.2. Mr.C.Deivasigamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Chemical Analyst report does not reveal or disclose the percentage of the alleged contraband and as such, it cannot be termed as heroin. The learned counsel has also relied on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in E.T.R. 1999 page 72 (Girdhar Nath v. State of Rajasthan).3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for NCB Cases submitted that the Chemical Examiner has given a report stating that the samples, which...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Kodai Automobiles Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. Does the Commissioner (Appeals) have the power to remand the case to the adjudicating authority after amendment of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001? 2. I have heard both sides on the appeal involving the above issue. I note that in the case of Commissioner Vs Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd.[2008 (224) ELT 393 (PandH)], the Hon’ble Punjab High Court held that power of remand of the Commissioner (Appeals) having been expressly taken away by the Finance Act, 2001, he is divested of the power to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority. The Bench concluded that there is expression of necessary intendment in deletion of the expression “or may refer the case back” , by the Legislature under Section 128A (3) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of CCE Jalandhar Vs B.C.Kataria [2008 (221) ELT 508 (PandH)], the High Court followed the ratio of the Division Bench judgement in the Enkay (India) Rubber Co....
M/S. Vigneshwar Exports Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. These appeals have been coming up for final hearing from time to time and adjourned at the request of the appellant’s counsel. From the fact that repeated adjournments have been sought, it transpires that they are not interested in pursuing these cases. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution....
The Branch Manager, M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. S.i. Kris ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
(The Respondent / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,42,485/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of occurrence till realization, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.13.02.2007 in C.C.105/2001.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful opposite party is the appellant. 2. The facts in brief leading to this appeal:- The complainant had taken a mediclaim insurance policy with the opposite party on 15.12.99, covering the period from 17.12.99 to 16.12.2000, not only for himself, but also for his wife. Under the policy, the opposite party had undertaken to reimburse the expenses incurred in respect of the disease or injury, which required hospitalization. 3. On 24.1.200...
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. F. Abdul ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants / opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay the a sum of Rs.46,800/- alongwith 18% interest and compensation of Rs.35000/- and cost of Rs.2500/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.7.2005 in CC No.10/2004.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant, who is the owner of Maxi Cab, bearing Regn.No.TN 50-0793, insured the same with the opposite parties, which met with an accident on 28.6.00, in which there was heavy damages to the vehicle. Pursuant to the policy, claim was lodged, not conceded by the opposite party, whereas repudiated on false grounds, thereby committing deficiency. Hence the complainant is constrained to file a case for the recovery of a sum of Rs.46,800/-, incurred by him ...
Gopal Mudaliar, and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1.The First Appellant/Plaintiff, during his life time, has preferred this present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.01.1997 made in A.S.No.33 of 1996 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai. 2.During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the First Appellant/Plaintiff died and hence, his Legal Representatives have been added and brought on record as Appellants. 3.The First Appellate Court viz., Principle District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, in the Judgment in A.S.No.33 of 1996, has, among others things, observed that 'As per Chapter 4 Section 22, 23 of The Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 the District Collector and his Officers have got powers to measure the land and hence, the Revenue Department has objected to the enjoyment of the poramboke land by the Appellant/Plaintiff (since deceased) and they have issued Ex.B.5-Memo and that has not been received by him and the same has been refused, as evident from Ex.B.5 and inasmuch as th...
S.Rajan. Vs. the Superintendent of Police, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 20.3.2002 passed by the first respondent confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 17.4.2002.2. The case of the petitioner, who was a Head Constable, is that he entered into service as Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve, Vellore on 8.8.1984. He was transferred to Law and Order wing in the year 1997 and while he was serving as a Police Constable in Vaniyambadi Police Station on 7.8.1997, he took medical leave. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in a criminal case in Crime No.227 of 2001 under sections 294 (b) and 354 IPC based on the complaint preferred by one Chinnathai, W/o. Samundi Gounder alleging that the petitioner attempted to misbehave with her. The said incident was alleged to have been taken place near Vaniyambadi Police Station. According to the petitioner, he was not available in the said place at that time.3. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 4.4.2001 due ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »