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.
BenjamIn Franklin. Vs. BenjamIn Franklin.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 14.5.2002, as confirmed in appeal by the second respondent, by an order dated 23.1.2003, by which the petitioner who was working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was dismissed from service with effect from 19.5.2002.2. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are that a charge memo dated 13.10.2001, was issued to the petitioner alleging gross misconduct and disobedience of Government Order and remissness of duties in his capacity as a member of the Central Reserve Police Force under section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1940. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge and thereafter an enquiry was conducted and the copy of the enquiry report was given to the petitioner and the petitioner also submitted his further explanation on 27.4.2002. The disciplinary authority, first respondent herein after go...
Aringer Anna Primary Agricultural Co-o. Vs. the Presiding Officer Labo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1.The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, Karaikkal in I.D.No.8 of 2000 dated 14.06.2002.2. The petitioner is the Management of Arigner Anna Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and the second respondent was its employee. The second respondent was retrenched from service on 21.2.1987 and was served with a notice in this regard on 23.2.1987. According to the petitioner/Management, before the order of retrenchment was passed, the second respondent was offered one month pay in lieu of one month notice period. However, the second respondent returned the amount and remitted the same into the Bank. Thereafter, on 18.8.1999, the petitioner submitted a petition before the Labour Officer for conciliation. The Labour Officer submitted a failure report to the Government of Pondicherry and the Government by an order dated 24.7.2000, referred the dispute for adjudication before the first respondent. The Labour Court ad...
L.Joseph Charlie Desk to Desk Courier Limited, Vs. the District Consum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Tuticorin against the petitioner herein in C.O.P.No.159 of 1997. The District Forum by order dated 04.06.1998 directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.500/- to the 2nd respondent herein. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the same. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed a petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] in E.P.P.No.21 of 1998 for imposing appropriate penalty for the failure of the petitioner to comply with the order of the 1st respondent forum. The petitioner did not appear before the 1st respondent forum despite several notices. Finally, the 1st respondent forum conducted summary trial and convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months by order dated 15.10.1998. A warrant for arr...
P. Manivannan. Vs. the Secretary to Government Revenue Dept. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. This writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to grant retrospective promotions to the petitioner to the posts of Deputy Inspector of Survey, Inspector of Survey, Assistant Director of Survey and Deputy Director of Survey on par with his junior one Mr.D.Pandurangan and to consequently revise his pay with retrospective effect based on the promotional categories.2. The petitioner has joined as Inspector of Survey and land records and retired from service on 30.11.2003. There appears to be some dispute between the Field Surveyors and Sub Inspectors of Survey and ultimately the Tribunal has passed an order revising the seniority. It was based on the Tribunal's order, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.527, Revenue Department, dated 12.08.2006, by which the promotion given to the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Survey was given retrospectively on par with his junior. It is also as per the said G.O., the petitioner was also conferred with monetary benefits on notional ba...
G.Pattabiraman. Vs. the Secretary to Government Health and Family Welf ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. The petitioner's father was working as Lab Technician in the third respondent Hospital. On 19.06.1996, his father expired during his service. The petitioner approached the respondents on 05.08.1997 for compassionate appointment. The petitioner possessed B.Sc., B.Ed., and he has also passed typewriting in lower and higher grade both in Tamil and English and lower in shorthand. Even, prior to the death of his father, his brother and sister got married and were living separately. Neither the brother nor the sister supported the petitioner and his mother.2. While so, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.09.2007 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 27.09.2007 of the first respondent and for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground in the respondents Department.4. Notice of motion was ordered on 30.07.2009.5. Heard Mr....
Papannan. Vs. State Rep. by Forest Range Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. This Criminal Original Petition, challenging the legality of the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore dated 31.01.2007 in C.C.No.6 of 2000 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirupattur, transferring the said case again to the very same magistrate after the case had been referred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 325 Cr.P.C., has been filed invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C2. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.P.G.Perumal Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) representing the respondent. The materials placed on both sides were also perused.3. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is:- "whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, to whom a case has been referred under Section 325 Cr.P.C, can retransfer the same to the very same Judicial Magistrate or assign it to any other Judicial Magistrate?"...
Ramasamy, and anr. Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Guruparap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.166 of 2008 whereby the appellants/A-1 & A-2 stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows: ACCUSEDCHARGE FINDING PUNISHMENTA-1302 IPC (2 counts) Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentenceA-2341 & 302 r/w 34 ( 2 counts) IPCGuilty1 month SI with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence respectively2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(a) A-1 and A-2 are brothers. The first deceased (D1) Sreenivasan was an unmarried. P.W.1 is his father. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. The second deceased (D2) Govindammal was the sister of A-1 and A-2. All belonged to Podarapalli Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. All of them were related to each other as agnates. While so, D1 Sreenivasan and D2 Govindammal developed i...
Super Spinning Mills Limited. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on business of manufacturing of textile cotton yarn. The second respondent passed the assessment order on 29.03.2000 for the assessment year 1997-1998 under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). The second respondent determined the income at Rs.7,53,85,400/- and demanded tax of Rs.2,90,08,129/-. 2.Aggrieved by the assessment order of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 24.04.2000. The Appellate Authority passed an order on 24.11.2000, by partly allowing the appeal and issued certain directions to the second respondent. However, the petitioner also preferred a further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3.The second respondent passed the revised order dated 16.02.2001 by giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 24.11.2000 referred to above. 4.The second respondent also passed the rectifica...
Society for Welfare of Indian Pilots. Vs. Union of India, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. By way of this Public Interest Litigation, the Society for Welfare of Indian Pilots has approached this Court for issuance of writ of declaration to declare clause 2.2 of the Civil Aviation Requirements, Section 7, Series 'G' Part II issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation(the second respondent) dated 08.10.1999 as revised on 08.08.2009 regarding the minimum experience requirement for engagement as Pilot in Command under the Foreign Aircrew Temporary Authorisation (FATA) and the practice of the second respondent in permitting the respondent airlines to have different medical standards for pilots engaged under the "FATA" and India pilots to be ultra vires.2. When, the writ petition came up for admission before us on 14.06.2010, after hearing the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and after considering the facts and also taking judicial notice of the recent increase in the air traffic accidents in India, we directed Assistant Solicitor General to take notice ...
The Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Aru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2010
1. The transport corporation has come forward with this appeal against the grant of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- awarded by the court below in favour of the claimant/respondent herein as against a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed in the claim petition.2. The facts of the case was that on 26.03.2004 at about 9.30 pm when the claimant was riding the motor cycle bearing Registration No. PY 01 T 1108 along with one Rajavel, near ICICI Bank at Periya Mudaliarchavadi, driver of the bus bearing registration No. TN-01-N-6076 belonging to the corporation was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. In the impact, the claimant sustained greivous injuries all over his body, fracture of the left knee, right leg, right hand wrist, little finger fracture, head injury near right ear. Immediately, he was taken to Government General Hospital, Pondicherry from where he was taken to Krupa Hospital, Pondicherry for better treatment and admitted on 27.03.2004. According to the claimant,...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »