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.
P.A.Kathirvelu (Deceased), and ors. Vs. K.Rathinam, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 30.03.2005 passed in I.A.Nos.232 and 233 of 2005 in A.S.Nos.47 and 48 of 2004 by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, these civil revision petitions are focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two revisions would run thus: (i) The respondents herein filed three suits, O.S.Nos.940 of 1999, 1468 of 1996 and 1573 of 1995 seeking permanent injunction as against the revision petitioner. All the three suits were disposed of by a common judgment, as against which three appeals were filed in A.S.Nos.47, 48 and 55 of 2004. (ii) P.A.Kathirvelu, the revision petitioner (deceased) after entering appearance in the appeals, filed respective applications under Section 151 of CPC for dismissing the appeals on the ground that A.S.Nos.47 and 48 of 2004 were taken on file without any application for getting the delay condoned in filing such appeals. Whereupon, th...
The Government of India, Vs. R.Chinnasamy (Died), and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order of learned single Judge in W.P.No.8955 of 2001 dated 30.01.2001 whereby the learned single Judge directed the Appellant-Government of India to pay "Swatantara Sainik Samman Pension" [SSS Pension] from 25.06.1985 i.e. from the date of application to the 1st respondent.2. Pending Writ Appeal, respondent-Chinnasamy died and his legal representatives [daughters and sons i.e. Jothimani, Santhanalakshmi, Sivasubramani, Bhoopathi, Selvamurugan] were brought on record as Appellants 2 to 6 in the Appeal.3. Brief facts are that Respondent-Writ Petitioner suffered imprisonment from 15.08.1942 to 15.07.1943 due to participation in the freedom movement. State Government recommended freedom fighters pension to the Writ Petitioner to the Central Government on 30.07.1998. By the letter No.129/718/85-FF (S2) dated 23.02.1999, the Appellant rejected the claim of the Writ Petitioner. Challenging the order of Appellant, Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.14778/1999. B...
A.Abinash. Vs. the Commissioner of Technical Education, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. All the writ petitions are directed against identical show cause notice dated 21.5.2010 in No.184/AUCBE-R/CEO/2010 issued by the first respondent/the Commissioner of Technical Education in and under which, the petitioners/students are called upon to make their representations as to why the result of the first year semester examination held in February 2010 should not be cancelled and as to why they should not be debarred from writing further examination for two more years for the malpractice of mass copying committed by them.2.The facts leading to the institution of batch of writ petitions are as follows:The third respondent herein viz., Archana Institute of Technology was established during the academic year 2009-2010 and the petitioners and few others totally numbering 123 students were admitted in four branches of Engineering Courses viz., Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering and Computer Science Engineering. The first semester exam...
Babu @ GA. Vs. Jayalakshmi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 17.06.2010 passed in EP Nos.584 and 601 of 2009 in OS Nos.73 and 74 of 2008 and order dated 08.07.2010 passed in E.P.No.84 of 2010 in O.S.No.103 of 2008 by the learned District Munsif, Neyveli, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no notice to the respondent is required.3. The nitty-gritty of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these three revisions would run thus: The respondent herein filed as many as three suits, O.S.Nos.73, 74 and 103 of 2008 and obtained three money decrees as against the one and the same person, who is the revision petitioner in all the three revision petitions. It so happened that in the Execution Petitions concerned in the proces of executing those three decrees, the Court ordered simultaneously attachment in all the three Execution Petitions and the grievance of the revision petitioner is that he ...
imran Ahamed Mohammed. Vs. the Registrar, Anna University, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. The petitioner joined B.E. Computer Science in the second respondent College during 2003-2004. He completed 2 years. He also appeared for all the semester examinations that were conducted during those two years. However, the first respondent-University took a decision to debar the petitioner for a period of two years. Therefore, the petitioner was not able to pursue his course for two years. However, he was re-admitted, after debarment. The re-admission was approved by the first respondent-University by an order dated 23.08.2007. The petitioner was re-admitted for the third year course during the year 2007-2008. While his initial admission was under the Regulations 2001, the re-admission was under Regulations 2004. Apart the from the petitioner, many others were also re-admitted to various courses. In those circumstances, the second respondent-College wrote a letter dated 13.12.2007 to the first respondent-University seeking information relating to the list of subjects to be studied...
N.V. Rengasamy. Vs. the Director of Technical Education, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. The writ appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16857 of 1993 dismissing the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to the concerned District Collector by way of an appeal against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The facts leading of filing of the writ petition by the appellant is to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Pa.Mu.No.14752/92 dated 20.1.1993, quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent to validate the community certificate bearing No.1217724 dated 16.9.89 issued by the Tahsildar Vadipatti to the petitioner.2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Hindu Kattunaicken Community which is a recognised Scheduled Tribe as per Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act 1976. The particulars relating to his community has been entered into his S.S.L.C.Book, Transfer Certificate and in school records. The Tahsildar, Vadipat...
A. Kuppan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1.Challenge is made to the judgment dated 10.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C. No.239 of 2007, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:(i) P.W.8 is the owner of mango thope where the incident of murder had taken place. During the relevant time, the accused/appellant and the deceased, who had illicit intimacy, were employed under P.W.8 and were residing in the hut situated on the south side of the mango grove. P.Ws.2 and 3 were employed in the adjacent mango grove. The deceased was insisting that the accused should have kept her permanently. There was often quarrel, which was known not only to P.Ws.2 and 3, but also to all the neighbors. (ii) During the nig...
R. Kannan. Vs. the Government of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. The writ petition is filed, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 03.04.2003 in No.52/CC/TN/280/2000-FF/SZ and quash the same and also to direct the first respondent to grant Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension (herein after referred to as SSS Pension) to the petitioner.2. Heard Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.Ravindranath, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that having inspired by the freedom movement lead by Mahatma Gandhi, the petitioner joined the movement, at the age of 15 years. An agitation had been planned at Chidambaram, Cuddalore District against the police officials by the Indian National Congress leaders, the petitioner also participated in the agitation, in whi...
Muniammal, and ors. Vs. Chellammal.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. The unsuccessful defendants in both the courts below are the appellants.2. This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 04.08.2005 in A.S.No.538 of 2004 passed by the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, whereby the decree and judgment dated 03.02.2004 passed by the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S.No.759 of 1997 were confirmed.3. The respondent herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.759 of 1997 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, against the appellants as defendants, for the following reliefs:"(1) declaring that the defendants are the tenants under the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, more fully described in the Schedule hereunder;(2) directing the defendants to pay Rs.360/- as arrears of rent for three years preceding to the presentation of the plaint together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation;(2A) directing ...
P.Ayyasamy. Vs. M/S Anandha Steels Rep. by Its Manager C.Venkatesan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 30.07.2009 passed in IA No.236 of 2009 in OS No.85 of 2006 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, this civil revision petition is focused.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money, whereupon the revision petitioner/D5 filed written statement and contested the matter. The plaintiff adduced evidence and closed his side. When the matter was posted for the revision petitioner/ defendant's side for adducing evidence, he filed his chief examination affidavit along with certain documents. The Court in the process of giving marking to the documents passed the impugned order to the effect that the documents were irrelevant and that they were only carbon copies of the sales tax department. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed o...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »