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.M.Sivaswami. Vs. Nagammal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. This Appeal arises out of the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.8 of 2002 dated 22.1.2003 decreeing Plaintiffs suit for partition in respect of plaint 'C' schedule [item No.3] and passing preliminary decree for partition of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs' 1/3rd share each. Unsuccessful 4th Defendant is the Appellant.2. 1st Defendant-Muthusamy Gounder is the husband of 1st Plaintiff-Nagammal. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 [Kasthuri & Kavitha] are the daughters of 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. Suit property relates to three items of properties. Briefly stated plaint averments are that 1st Defendant owned 4 acres of ancestral property at Sungakkaranpalayam village which was sold in the year 1974 and from out of the sale proceeds of the said 4 acres, the suit properties and other properties were purchased in the name of 1st Defendant as he was Karta of the family. Subsequently, Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant were in enjoyment of the suit properties as their joint family properties and they had been in the su...
The Branch Manager New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs. Meera, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. The Insurance company has come forward with this appeal against the grant of a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- awarded by the court below in favour of the claimant/first 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 14.03.2005 at 05.20 pm when the claimant/first respondent was going in the left side of the road at Thirukaravasal Village, near Thirumanamandapam, the driver of the van bearing Registration No. TN-33-Z-5657, belonging to the second respondent herein, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. In the impact, the claimant/first respondent sustained injuries on her left temporarl region, right side fore head and multiple injuries all over her body. Therefore, for the injuries sustained in the road accident, the claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.3. Before the court below, the claimant examined herself as PW1, one Maragadham as PW2, Dr. Madhivanan as PW3 and two other witnesses ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/S.Caltex Gas India Pvt. Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. The Revenue has come forward with this appeal and the question of law sought to be raised reads as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) when the assessee has made bogus claim made on the depreciation on goodwill? "2. We have perused the order of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal. The respondent/assessee stated to have claimed depreciation on goodwill. According to the appellant such claim was rejected in the earlier assessment years. The assessee chose to make the claim for the present assessment year also. On that basis, it cannot be held that the claim itself was bogus. The question for consideration was whether penalty could be levied on such a claim which was made by the assessee on the footing that the claim should be construed as one of bogus. It is in that context the Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation was not a bogus claim. Therefore, mere disal...
M.Doss, and anr. Vs. A.Sankar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 18.09.2009 passed in RCA No.356 of 2008 by the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in confirming the order dated 22.04.2008 passed in RCOP No.1063 of 2007 by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenants.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(i) The respondent/landlord filed RCOP No.1063 of 2007 seeking eviction invoking sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(B) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the grounds of wilful default in paying the rent and different user. Whereupon, the matter was contested. (ii) On the side of the landlord, he examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the tenants, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Ultimately the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction o...
Karthikeyan. Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct further investigation in Crime No.38/2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent.2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, on his complaint dated 20.1.2008, a case was registered for offence under Sections 294(b), 355, 323 r/w. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Though the case has been registered, the Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the investigation found no offence under the SC/ST Act stood committed and hence he returned the investigation of the case to the Inspector of Police, the 2nd respondent herein. Thereafter, an alteration report was filed by the 2nd respondent on 30.11.2009, deleting the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, even if the petitioner had not...
Dr.K.Meena Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition challenging the orders by which her request for voluntary retirement was rejected.2. I have heard Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. The petitioner was originally selected and appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 29.4.1988 in the Tamil Nadu Medical Services. At that time, she had the qualifications of M.B.B.S., and D.G.O. Subsequently she was selected as a service candidate, for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Course in M.D. (O&G;) and she completed the same in the year 1993. After completion of the Post Graduate Degree, the petitioner was appointed as a Tutor in the Kilpauk Medical College. Later she was promoted as Assistant Professor in which post she continued.4. The petitioner completed 20 years of service in April 2008 and also completed 50 years of age on 2.9.2008. Thereupon she served a notice dated 2.9.2008 on t...
S.Babu, and ors. Vs. the Assistant General Manager, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners, a sum of Rs.28,922/-, Rs.38,909/- and Rs.21,613/- respectively towards interest for the delayed payment of provident fund, gratuity and the commutation payable to the petitioners on the date of reliving from services.2. Considering the questions of law involved in all these writ petitions, common order is being passed.3. It is an admitted fact that these petitioners are retired employees of the State Bank of India. S.Babu, petitioner in W.P.No.3467 of 2008, seeks direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.28,922/- towards interest for the delayed payment of provident fund, gratuity and the commutation payable to him on the date of reliving from his service; K.Manoharan, petitioner in W.P.No.3468 of 2008, seeks direction to the respondents, to pay a sum of Rs.38,909/- towards interest for the de...
R.Grahamdurai. Vs. the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medici ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the second respondent made in his proceedings Moo.Mu.No.4713/S5/08 dated 03.10.2008 and to quash the same and to forbear the respondents from in any manner to refix and recover the pay already fixed and sanctioned to the petitioner about 11 years back.3. The brief facts relevant herein are stated as follows:i)The petitioner was appointed as Surveillance field worker on 01.03.1965 and was promoted as multi-purpose Health Assistant in Public Health Department on 01.03.1965 and was sanctioned selection grade and special grade in the same post on 01.10.1978 and 04.11.1988 respectively. Whileso, the petitioner was due to be promoted to the post of multi-purpose supervisor/ Health Inspector Grade I during 1997 and when his claim for promotion was denied, he approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and the petitioner's case was disposed of along with batch of ca...
Punitha Manohar. Vs. A.C.Manohar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Punitha Manohar has brought forth this petition for the production of her second child by name M.Vibhashree, aged 9, before this Court. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the averments in the affidavit and also the submissions of the learned Counsel, is that out of the wedlock, they have got two children, the first one aged 17, and the second one aged 9; that the petitioner and her husband after the marriage, for the past 19 years were living happily despite the fact that there were disputes that arose then and there, and they were amicably settled; but for the past six months, they have been living apart; that from November 2009 onwards, the respondent husband did not allow the children to speak with her; that she is a post-graduate in M.A.; that her first daughter was doing 12th Standard in St. John's High...
S.Santhi. Vs. the Superintendent Engineer, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. The petitioner joined service as Technical Assistant on 02.01.1998 in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. She was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 15.05.2002. She joined duty as Assistant Engineer in Sub-Station, Mettur R.S. on 28.06.2008. 2.While so, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Unit, Salem registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.8/AC/2008 on 12.09.2008 on the basis of a complaint given by one Mr.Srinivasan, son of Mr.Manickam, Karumalaikoodal Village, Mettur Dam, Salem District. The complaint was that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification for providing additional electricity supply of 70 HP for his vessels manufacturing company in the SIDCO at Karumalaikoodal. In this connection, the petitioner was arrested by the officials of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department on 13.09.2008 pursuant to the trap laid by them. The petitioner was released on bail on the same day on execution of her own bond. 3.In these circumstances, invoking its power under Regulation...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »