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.
C.Chinnaya Gounder. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents.2. The petitioner had stated that he is the absolute owner of the property in S.No.290 of Ikkarainegamman Village. A Well is situated in the petitioners land in S.F.No.425/3A2B of Sathyamangalam Village. The water from the said Well is being used for agricultural purposes. A Track Rent permit had been granted to the petitioner, by the authority concerned, to draw water from the Well, which is situated close to the Bhavani river, permitting the petitioner to use the percolated water from the Well, for agricultural purposes. The petitioner has been paying, periodically, the track rent, the water cess and the kist due from her. The petitioner 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 petitioner has been using the water from the Well in question, without violating the ter...
Marammal @ Appichiyammal, and anr. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
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.F.No.319/10A2 of Ikkarai Thathapalli Village. A Well is situated in the petitioners land in S.Nos.287/1, 3 and 4. 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 the water from the Well in question, without violating the...
P.Mohan. Vs. the Inspector of General Prison, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.3209 of 2000, seeking a direction to the respondents to revise the petitioner's scale of pay from 2750-4400 to 3050-4590 and pay all arrears from the date of 01.01.1998. The said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.45304 of 2006.2. The petitioner, P.Mohan, after his appointment as Grade II Warder in the Central Prison, Vellore, was working in the Special Prison for Women, Vellore. In the year 1983, the scale of pay was Rs.280/- and the petitioner was also given same scale of pay. The nature of work, duty hours and physical fitness are one and the same for both posts. In the year 1985, the petitioner's scale of pay was revised as per the Fourth Pay Commission as Rs.505/-. Thereafter, in the year 1989, the scale of pay of the petitioner was also revised at Rs.825/- as per the Fifth Pay Commission. Once ...
N.Elangathir. Vs. the Manager Indian Bank Maraimalai Nagar Branch, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 19.04.2007 and pass appropriate orders.2. The petitioner herein has averred that his maternal uncle, Late Natarajan, who was employed in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation at Neyveli had deposited a huge amount with the respondents 1 to 11 and he has further stated that the said Natarajan died issueless and he executed a Will in favour of the petitioner herein. Based on the Will, the petitioner has claimed right for the amount deposited with the respondents 1 to 11.3. The petitioner has also stated that the said Natarajan lived with his elder brother, one Gomathinayagam at Chennai and hence, Munusamy, his elder brother's son and his wife Anbarasi were appointed as nominees in their individual capacity or joint capacity for all the fixed deposits and the S.B...
M. Chinnathambi. Vs. the Superintendent of Police, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. The grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that his son by name C. Suresh is missing from 7.7.2010. Though a complaint was given on 18.7.2010 to the second respondent, no case has been registered. Hence, this habeas corpus petition is brought forth by the petitioner seeking for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to produce his son before this Court.2. In such circumstances, the second respondent is directed to register a case and investigate the case effectively. With this direction, the habeas corpus petition is disposed of. ...
Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd., Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. The short question which arises for consideration is, whether an order of rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act could be passed to rectify the intimation given under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, after a final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act has been passed.2. The petitioner is a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking. It is an income tax assessee. For the accounting year ended with 31.03.1993, the petitioner submitted the tax return admitting Nil income. The said return was accepted by the second respondent on 07.03.1994 by issuance of an intimation in terms of Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act on 31.03.1994. The petitioner later on filed a revised return of the income on 04.07.1995 wherein, the deduction originally claimed for the provisions created for bonus and gratuity was reversed. The second respondent acting on the revised return, completed the scru...
The Authorized Officer, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the Sub Court, Namakkal, in I.A.No.17 of 2008 in A.S.No.8 of 2008, this civil revision petition is filed.2. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: (i) The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.453 of 2006 seeking the following relief. (ii) The matter was contested.(iii) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the respondent/plaintiff preferred the appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2008 and also filed the I.A.No.17 of 2000 seeking status quo and the same was granted.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of status quo, the present revision has been filed by the defendants on various grounds.4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: (i) The suit its...
Samiyathal, and anr. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
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 R.S.No.90/3 and 93/1 of Indiampalayam Village and in S.F.Nos.306/2, 308/1, 308/2, 308/3 and 308/7 of Pudukalayanur Village A Well is situated in the petitioners land in S.F.No12/1A of Indiampalayam 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...
M/S. Arr Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
1. Heard both sides. 2. The issue relates to the eligibility of the appellants for small scale exemption. “Unbranded chewing tobacco” is one of the specified goods covered under the small scale exemption notification. Branded chewing tobacco on the other hand is not covered under the scheme. Goods manufactured with the brand name of another person are also not eligible for small scale exemption. The labels used for chewing tobacco manufactured by the appellants have been examined. For the period 1.5.2003 to 31.3.2004, the appellants have used a different label. This period is covered by Appeal No. E/658/2005. The other two appeals No. E/869/2006 and No. E/351/2007 relate to the subsequent period during which different labels have been used by the appellants. All these three appeals are taken up together. 3. In the first period, the appellants have used the abbreviation “ARR” in very large letters on the label of their product whereas in the latter period they h...
The Special Officer Vs. M. Gnanamaniammal and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2010
(The Appellants as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/ 1st opposite party and 4th Respondent / 2nd opposite part praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.90,661.40/- alongwith compensation of Rs.30000/- and cost of Rs.10000/-. 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.5.4.2007 in O.P.No.16/2003.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainants are the legal heirs of Mariappa Thevar. The 1st complainant and her husband Mariappa Thevar, were the members of the 1st opposite party society. Mariappa Thevar, had availed a loan facility of Rs.1,25,000/-, as per the proceedings of the 1st opposite party dt.4.5.1993, which was disbursed by two instalments. The amount should be repaid in monthly instalments, spread over for 10 years. 3. Mariappa Thevar died on 17.10.1998. Under the G...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »