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.
S.Chellam. Vs. the Inspector General of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.3111 of 2000, challenging the show cause notice dated 29.02.2000. The said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.45664 of 2006.2. The petitioner suffered the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months each. When the petitioner suffered the above said punishment imposed by the Criminal Court, on involvement of his corruption charges, the respondent having found the petitioner rendered himself quite unbecoming member of Police Force, issued a show cause notice asking to show cause as to why he should not be dismis...
Ponnusamy. Vs. Kasilingam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 26.10.2009, made in A.S.No.86 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Perambalur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2007, made in O.S.No.90 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur.2. The defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.90 of 2000, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein.3. The suit, in O.S.No.90 of 2000, had been filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree to declare the plaintiff's title in respect of the suit property and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, and for costs.4. The plaintiff had stated that he is the owner of the suit property. His father had purchased the suit property, under a sale deed, dated 24.6.1974, registered as Document No.2128/74...
M/S. Sree Ram and Co Rep. by Its Partner. Vs. Government of India Mini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in Letter No.Q11046/MISGRADING/III/2003 and quash the same.2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a dealer carrying on business of butter and ghee, obtained certification of authorisation from the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development and using AGMARK graded ghee licence under the name and style of "Udhaya Krishna" with the picture of Lord Krishna, which was approved by the authorities.3. The petitioner has stated that the respondent approved the petitioner's licence for using AGMARK grade vide file No.11030/44/CH/III/95, dated 28.04.1995 for five years and thereafter, the same was subject to renewal and accordingly, it was renewed till 31.03.2010.4. It is also not in dispute that on 03.01.2006, the respondent's officials, as per proc...
T.Arumugam. Vs. Government of Tamilnadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. One of the unsuccessful candidates is before this court challenging the election held on 13.2.2010 in which the 7th respondent was declared elected.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist and water user of Mangakupppam Village Eri, Pattaraiperumbakkam Post, Thiruvallur Taluk and District. The State government conducted an election for Distributory Committee for Water User Association of Manjankuppam lake on 13.2.2010 in which the petitioner was also a contestant along with respondents 5 to 7. The election was held on 13.2.2010. The petitioner as well as the respondents 5 and 6 were defeated and the 7th respondent was declared elected. The petitioner has come before this court challenging the said election for violation of Tamil Nadu Farmers Management of Irrigation systems Act 2000 (Tamil Nadu Act 2001) and especially Rule 4 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation System Election Rules 2003.)3. Mr.P.Sivamani, learned counsel for the petitioner ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/S. Indian Gospel Fellowship Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.11.2009 passed in ITA.No.1417/Mds/2009, whereby the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated 20.08.2009 passed under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was set aside. Challenging the said order, by raising the following substantial questions of law, the present appeal has been filed: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax refusing registration u/s.12AA of the Income-tax Act, rejecting the petition for condoning the delay of 6 years and 2 months, accepting the plea of ignorance of law on the part of the Managing Trustee?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in accepting the reason given that the delay was attributable to the fact that there was no activities of the Trust till 31.03....
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ltu Chennai Vs. Caterp ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to the adjudicating authority following the ratio of the Tribunal’s decision in Afloat Textiles (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Vapi [2007 (215) ELT 198]. Subsequent to the remand, the adjudicating authority has taken up the case and passed Order-in-Original No.LTUC/102/2010 dt. 18.3.2010 rejecting the refund claim of the assessees, against which an appeal has been stated to have been preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the assessees which is pending decision. 2. In the light of the above factual position, the present appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal on 9.4.2010 against the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is dismissed as infructuous. The cross-objection is also dismissed....
K.Sundaram. Vs. Deivanai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. Heard both sides.2. At the hearing, the joint memo of compromise, signed by the parties to the lis herein and their respective Advocates, has been filed. Both the Advocates in unison would pray for recording the said joint memorandum of compromise and for disposing of these two civil revision petitions, based on the same.3. Perused the records.4. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and the joint memorandum of compromise, I could see no reason not to record the same.5. Accordingly, both these civil revision petitions are disposed of based on the joint memorandum of compromise and the joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of the decree. In the event of any default, the landlady is at liberty to execute the eviction order as per law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
G.Karunakaran. Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government, Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. The petitioner joined the Chit conducted by the third respondent. When, he joined the Chit, he was residing in a rented house temporarily at No.AJ, 9th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. The said Chit was for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- payable monthly an amount of Rs.12,500/-. He was declared as a successful bidder in the auction held on 10.05.2003. He paid the monthly chit amount.2. According to the petitioner, the third respondent filed an Arbitration case in A.R.C.No.551/2006 against the petitioner before the second respondent. The petitioner was not served with any notice in the above said A.R.C. Proceedings. However, the second respondent proceeded with the above A.R.C. on the basis of publication of notice in a newspaper and set the petitioner ex-parte and ex-parte award was passed on 26.10.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-.3. While so, the petitioner received a notice in E.P.No.2394 of 2008 on the file of X Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai in the month of September 2009, to app...
M/S.Gem Granites. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. Writ Appeals except W.A.No.716 of 2000:These Writ Appeals arise out of common order in W.P.Nos.24199 of 2001 etc., batch, whereby the learned single Judge struck down Rule 8-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.86, Industries/MMC, dated 22.2.2001 is contrary to the Granite Conservation and Development Rules, 1999, as the State Government has not carried out the scheme of Granite Conservation and Development Rules and ultra vires Section 18 of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. Since all the Writ Appeals arise out of common order and the Writ Petitions also involve determination of same points, the Writ Petitions and all the Writ Appeals were heard together and disposed off by this common judgment.2. For conservation and systematic development of and scientific mining to conserve the granite resources and to prescribe a uniform frame-work with regard to systematic and scientific exploitation of granite throughout the Cou...
Jaya Chakrabarty, and anr. Vs. M.Baskar, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. The Honble The Chief Justice Since all these five appeals arose out of a common judgment and award passed by Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, they have been heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. C.M.A.No.3511 of 2006 arose out of M.C.O.P.No.1147 of 2003, in which compensation was claimed on account of death of one Sumanta Chakrabarthi in a motor vehicle accident. C.M.A.No.3512 of 2006 arose out of M.C.O.P.No.1148 of 2003 in which case compensation was claimed on account of the injury caused to the claimant/appellant namely., Jaya Chakrabarthi. C.M.A.No.3513 of 2006 arose out of M.C.O.P.No.1149 of 2003 wherein compensation was claimed on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the motor vehicle accident. C.M.A.No.3514 of 2006 arose out of M.C.O.P.No. 5702 of 2003 in which compensation was claimed on account of death of one Debashish Bhowmick in the said accident. C.M.A.No.3515 of 2006 arose out of M.C.O.P.No.5537 of 2003 in which case compensation was claim...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »