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.Viswanathan. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. The petitioner was selected in the Competitive Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Junior Assistant in the Ministerial Service in the Transport Department of Tamil Nadu Government in 1971. Though the Transport Department issued an order dated 31.12.1971 appointing him as Junior Assistant, by an order dated 06.03.1972 he was sent on deputation to work as a Junior Assistant in the Adyar Depot of the then Pallavan Transport Corporation, that was running passenger services in Chennai. 2.The Transport Department of the Tamil Nadu Government operated passenger services all over Tamil Nadu, including Chennai. Later, various Transport Corporations were formed during 1972 and those Corporations run the passenger services thereafter. Those Corporations are Companies registered under the Companies Act. The workmen employed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department were sent on deputation to work in various Transport Corporations. 3.The Governmen...
State Represented by the Inspector of Police Annamalai Nagar Police St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. This is a petition brought forth by the State seeking condonation of delay of 435 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Additional Session, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore, made in S.C.No.303 of 2008 dated 23.10.2008. 2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused and also the counter affidavit. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioner State and also the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 3.Admittedly, the respondents herein stood charged under various provisions of law inter alia along with the charge of murder. The case was tried by the Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddlore, and the judgment of acquittal was rendered on 23.10.2008. 4.According to the State, the certified copy of the judgment was applied for, and the same was obtained, and after obtaining the same, an opinion was sought for from the Additional Public Prosecutor, and after obtaining the opinion on 15.11.2008, a proposal was sent to the Super...
T.Devaraj Naicker, and ors. Vs. V.Subramanian, and Ors,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.10.2005, made in A.S.No.29 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.2002, made in O.S.No.124 of 1999, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu.2. The plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.124 of 1999, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein.3. The suit, in O.S.No.124 of 1999, had been filed by the plaintiffs praying for a judgment and decree declaring the plaintiffs title over the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents and servants from, in any way, interfering with the plaintiffspeaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, and for costs.4. The plaintiffs had stated that they are the sons of late Thiruvengada Naicker. The first defendant is the son of Thulukkana Naicker. Thiruvengada Naic...
M/S. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., Coimbatore Project Office Vs. Preside ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
(This petition is filed to set aside the order in CMP.295/2009 IN COP No.104/2008 dt.4.12.2009.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The complainant, leveling deficiencies against the builder/opposite parties, has filed a case before the District Forum in CC No.104/2009, seeking certain reliefs. 2. In that case, in order to note down the physical features and to quantify the damage also, the complainant moved the application, for the appointment of a commissioner, which was conceded by the District Forum, by the order dt.26.11.2009, which is impugned in this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, would submit that the building was constructed in the year 2005, possession was handed over in 2005 itself, and therefore at this distance of time, if any damage had been caused to the building, it might be due to wear and tear, or by natural cause, which will not prove the actual damage claimed by the complainant, and this being the position, by the appointme...
Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Vs. C. Subr ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2010
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants / 1st and 2nd opposite parties, and 2nd Respondent/ 3rd opposite party, praying for the direction to the opposite parties to supply a brand new computer to pay a sum of Rs.51000/- towards loss in purchasing new laptop, to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation for causing mental agony Rs.200000/- towards loss of information records and cost of Rs.10000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint against 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.20.6.2007 in COP No.466/2006.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The 1st respondent, as complainant, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (South), in C.C.No.446/2006, leveling so many deficiencies against opposite parties, seeking the following reliefs: 1. Supply to the complainant a brand new laptop namely, Compaq Presario M2225A) ...
A.Rajasekaran, and anr. Vs. K.Perumal Gramani, and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2004 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kancheepuram in R.C.A.No.5 of 2004 in reversing the eviction order dated 31.07.2003 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kancheepuram in RCOP No.35 of 2001, this civil revision petition is focussed by the landlords.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:(a) The landlords/revision petitioners herein filed the RCOP No.35 of 2001 for eviction of the tenants on the grounds of wilful default and owner's occupation by invoking Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,(herein after referred to as the 'Act' for short). b) The matter was contested before the Rent Controller.(c) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of owner's occupation and rejected the the ground of wilful def...
G. Kumarappan .. Vs. the Commissioner, Alandur Municipality.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed to quash the order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.2611/2008/A1 dated 25.09.2009 and to direct the respondent to execute the agreement in favour of the petitioner for the premises i.e. Commercial Complex II Floor, Near G.S.T. Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.3. The respondent herein is by notification dated 10.01.2008 notified the building belonging to the Municipality for grant of lease and the petitioner participated in the auction held on 15.02.2008 and he having offered the highest bid was declared as the successful bidder in respect of the building measuring 4532 sq.ft. in second floor of the commercial complex, near GST Road, Alandur, Chennai.4. The dispute arises before this Court is as to the date on which the petitioner is put in possession of the property and the date from which he is due to pay rent to the premises taken on lease. The petition mentioned building consisting of basement, g...
G.Krishnamoorthy. Vs. Padmavathy, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2001 made in A.S.No.22 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 made in O.S.No.429 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. The 1st defendant is the appellant herein.2. The parties are related as under:-Perumal Naidu(died in 1908)||-----------------------------| | |1st wife adopted son,(E) Ammathayee Ammal (second wife)| (Ramachandran) |(died in 1950) (A)------------ | ---------------| | | |Venkatamma Seethalakshmi Damodaran Muthulakshmi=Muthukrishnan(C) (D) |(died) (died) (B) | (died)| | |------------------- ----------------- || | | | | |Widow daughter son Vatsala Damodaran |(Plaintiffs 1 to 3) (died) (died unmarried || in 1995) |-------------- || | (Brother)Husband Daughter GopalsamyRajaram Usha @ Pappa Naidu(died) (died) |||Krishnamurthy(son)(1st defendant)3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as foll...
Palanivel. Vs. the Secretary S 1565 Palace Nagar Co-operative House Bu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petitions are filed by the petitioners to quash the undated sale notice issued by the fourth respondent in Form No.9 under Rule 126(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988 for selling the petitioner's land and house properties measuring 1.64 acres situated in Nos.301/2 & 303/2, Thesavillakku Village, No.191/4(1), Arurpatti Village, respectively Tharamangalam Sub District, Omalur Talum, Salem District in public auction and to quash the same and to forbear the respondents from selling the petitioner's said land and house properties besides directing the respondents to reschedule the repayment of the loan amount due by the petitioner to the first respondent.3. As both the writ petitions are against the same respondents against identical sale notice for identical relief based on identical set of facts involving identical issues both are disposed of by common order.4. The petitioners in both the writ p...
Assistant General Manager, Local Head Office, Vs. Sri.M.Chaidambaram.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. The petitioner was working as a Cook in the Staff Quarters of the petitioner Bank known as Underwood Gardens, Chennai. He unauthorisedly absented himself from 17.5.1994 onwards. A notice dated 14.07.1994 was issued to him calling upon him to join duty within three days. But there was no response to the said notice. It is further stated that yet another notice dated 03.08.1994 was issued by the Bank to the petitioner calling upon him to join duty within 30 days. For the said notice also, it is alleged that there was no response. Finally, a notice dated 22.8.94 was issued which states as follows: " Please refer to the Letter Nmo.Lo.87 dated 14.07.1994 and LO 103 dated 03.08.1994, calling upon you to report for duty. It is observed that you are continuing to be absent from duty since 17.05.1994. The above position is highly irregular and in contravention of the rules governing your service in the Bank. You are, therefore, hereby advised to report for duty within 30 days of the date of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »