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.
.Kariya Gounder, and anr. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1. Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents.2. The petitioners had stated that they are the absolute owners of the property in S.No.175/2A of Ikkarai Thathapalli Village. A Well is situated in the petitioners land in S.F.Nos.332/3, 333/1, 379/3, 4, 383/2, 3, 4 , 392/1 of Ikkarai Thathapalli Village. The water from the said Well is being used for agricultural purposes. A Track Rent permit had been granted to the petitioners, by the authority concerned, to draw water from the Well, which is situated close to the Bhavani river, permitting the petitioners to use the percolated water from the Well, for agricultural purposes. The petitioners have been paying, periodically, the track rent, the water cess and the kist due from them. The petitioners had also been directed to pay an one time water cess, for the usage of the water percolated in the Well in question, from the Bhavani river.3. It had also been stated that the petitioners have been using ...
P.Anandan. Vs. K.S.Anand.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 04.12.2009 passed in MP No.337 of 2009 in RCOP No.2175 of 2008 by the learned XII Judge, (Rent Controller) Court of Small Causes, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenant.2. Heard both sides.3. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this matter would run thus: Indubitably and indisputably, the respondent herein filed RCOP as against the revision petitioner/tenant herein for eviction. The respondent remained ex parte, whereupon ex parte order of eviction was ordered. Thereafter, an application to get the delay of 192 days condoned in filing the application to get the ex parte order of eviction set aside was filed. That application for condonation of delay was ordered subject to payment of certain arrears. Whereupon the tenant being aggrieved by such alleged onerous condition, instead of filing RCA invoking Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred ...
S.S.Krishnamoorthy. Vs. Secretary to Government Municipal Administrati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1.The petitioner S.S.Krishnamoorthy while serving as Municipal Engineer at Ambattur Municipality received charge memo issued under Rule 8(2) of Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1970 in Roc.No.64528/96/C2 dated 11.8.97 containing two charges as under: "CHARGE NO.1:"that, you (Thiru) S.Krishnamurthy, former Municipal Engineer, Ambattur is responsible for having called for tenders on 7.11.96 (Daily Thanthi) for execution of 4 weeks (Annexure-II) to the tune of Rs.13.00 lakhs without obtaining Technical sanction and approval of the Council etc. in violation of the Tender Rule vide Article 6.39 of Tamil Nadu Municipal Manual Volume-II and thereby caused loss of Rs.7,344/- to Municipal fund by paying advertisement charges to the News Paper". CHARGE NO.2:"that you (Thiru) S.Krichnamurthy Municipal Engineer is responsible for having called for tenders on 8.11.96 (Daily Thanthi) for supply of spare parts for maitanance of Sodium Mercury Vapour and Tube lights etc. in ...
Sakthivel. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1. Challenge is made to the order of the second respondent made in NO.C.M.P./No.43/D.O./Salem City/2009, dated 08.09.2009 whereby the detenu, viz., Senthil, S/o.Chinnathampi, the brothe-in-law of the petitioner, was termed as "Drug Offender" under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2.The affidavit filed in support of the petition and the grounds of detention are perused. The order under challenge is also perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the State. 3.Concededly, the order under challenge came to be passed by the second respondent, Detaining Authority, on the strength of the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority, whereby 3 adverse cases, namely Crime Nos.133/2008, 7/2009 and 54/2009 registered by Salem, NIB CID and also one ground case in Crime No.110/2009 were noticed. In Crime No.110/2009, the detenu was alleged to have been found in possession of 2.5 Kgs of Ganja and a case came to be registered for t...
Rakkiappan Vs. Sekar
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
(The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.49,350/- for completing the unfinished works done by the complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- for the sub-standard and poor construction works done by the opposite party and to pay Rs.1 lakh towards damages for mental agony. 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.7.04.2006 in C.C.33/2004.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent in this appeal, as complainant, filed a case, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.49,350/- being the value of, completing the unfinished work done by the complainant and for Rs.50,000/- for sub-standard and poor construction work done by the opposite party, as well for a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards damage for mental agony on the following grounds. 3....
G.Selvam. and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. The petitioners in these writ petitions seek appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teachers by considering the Post Graduate Degrees that they have in special branches of certain subjects as equivalent to the Post Graduate Degrees in the general branches of those subjects.2. I have heard Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan and Mr.M.Suresh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.3. The petitioner in W.P.No.12780 of 2010 has a B.Sc., degree in Physics, a M.Sc., degree in Bio-Physics and a B.Ed., degree. The petitioners in the other two writ petitions have a B.Sc., degree in Chemistry, a M.Sc., degree in Inorganic Chemistry and a B.Ed., degree.4. The petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and were invited by call letters dated 3.3.2010 by the Teachers Recruitment Board for certificate verification and for consideration for recruitment to the post of P.G. Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Higher S...
R.Muthukrishnan. Vs. the Collector of Tiruvallur District,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. The instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent, District Collector, Tiruvallur District punishing for willfully disobeying the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3013 of 2009.2. The Office has returned the papers with a note that the petitioner must give the name of the District Collector against whom contempt proceeding needs to be initiated. The Office has also doubted the maintainability of the contempt petition on the ground of defective cause title. Hence, the record has been placed before us.3. Mr.R.Muthukrishnan, PetitionerinPerson strenuously challenged the office note and submitted that the same is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that in contempt proceeding petitioner is not required under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to disclose the name of the person who committed contempt. There is no provision under the Rules of the Madras High Court regulating the contempt proceedings to present the con...
Sundarajan @ Pichaikaran. Vs. Aanji.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. The appellant is the successful plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 307 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Arni. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2006 passed in A.S. No. 20 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein, remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal.2. According to the appellant, the suit in O.S. No. 307 of 1994 was filed by him against the defendants for the following relief:-"a. Restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc., by means of a permanent injunction from putting up any constructions over the 'B' schedule propertyb. Directing the defendants to remove the structures put up in the 'B' schedule property by means of a mandatory injunction failing which remove the same through court at the costs of the defendantsbb. Declare the title of the plaintiff with regard to the 'B' schedule property and direct the defendants to deliver possession of the 'B' schedule property...
T.S.Nandha Kumar (Deceased), and ors. Vs. Latha (Alias) Priya, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. Inveighing the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A.No.783 of 2008 in I.A.No.818 of 2006 in O.S.No.2869 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the suit O.S.No.2869 of 2004 and got an exparte decree. Whereupon, I.A.No.818 of 2006 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the original deceased first defendant to get the delay of 37 days condoned in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to get the exparte decree set aside. The said delay was condoned and thereafter, the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was allowed subject to the condition that the original deceased first defendant should pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiffs. However, there was default on ...
The District Collector, Kamarajar District at Virudhunagar. and anr. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge, wherein the order passed by the first appellant directing the respondent to pay the lease amount after refusing to extent the period of lease, was set aside.2. The facts of the case in brief are that by the District Gazette (Extra-ordinary) No.29, dated 16.7.1991 bids were invited for the public auction on the scheduled dates to quarry stones in Survey No.683/1 of Singammalpuram village in Srivilliputhur Taluk to an extent of 2.32 acres and in Survey No.188 and 194 of Solaiseri village in Rajapalayam Taluk to an extent of 8 acres. In pursuance of the auction conducted on 16.7.1991, the respondent became the successful bidder and the auction was confirmed on 17.9.1991 in his favour.3. However, before the execution of the lease deed, the respondent filed a writ petition No.14700 of 1991 and obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering with his ri...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »