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.
M.Ganesas. Vs. R.Subramanian.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 24.02.2010 passed in RCA No.6 of 2005 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, in confirming the order dated 22.09.2005 passed in RCOP No.2 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal, this civil revision petition is focused.2. Heard both sides.3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:(i) The respondent herein preferred RCOP No.2 of 2004 invoking Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The matter was contested.(ii) On the side of the landlord, he examined himself as P.W.1 along with Shrikumar/P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3. Ultimately, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction as against which the appeal was filed for...
S.P.K.Dhamodhar. Vs. Narayanasamy, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Heard Mr.S.Subramaniam Balaji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Masilamani, the Senior Counsel for Mr.Mani Sundargopal, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, as well as Mr.G.Rajagopalan, the learned Senior Counsel for M/s.G.R. Associates appearing for the second respondent.2. This election petition had been filed by the petitioner, who is said to be a registered voter at the Puducherry Parliamentary Constituency.3. The petitioner had stated that he had functioned as the Chief Election Agent for Mr.Vishweswaran, a candidate nominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party, to contest as a candidate in the Parliamentary Elections, concluded in the year, 2009. The first respondent was the candidate nominated by the Indian National Congress party, to contest the said elections. At the said elections, the first respondent had been declared as the winning candidate, by the second respondent/Returning officer, on 16.5.2009.4. The petitioner had further sta...
R.Ranganathan. Vs. Thiru Devendranath Sarangi I.A.S.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent herein for committing grave contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.28412 of 2006 (O.A.No.2794 of 1996), dated 25.6.2008.2. This Court, by its order, dated 25.6.2008, had permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of the passing of the order, and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent had been directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even after a representation, dated 7.8.2008, having been submitted to the respondent, in person, no orders had been passed by the respondent on the said representation, as directed by this Court, ...
O.P.Mani. Vs. K.Munusamy, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1.Animadverting upon the order dated dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Sub-Court, Poonamallee, in M.P.No.109 of 2008 in RCA No.11 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 respondents herein being the landlords filed the RCOP.44 of 2005 for fixation of fair rent and the matter was contested. (ii) Ultimately, the lower Court fixed the fair rent.(iii) As against the said order, the revision petitioner/tenant preferred the appeal in RCA No.11 of 2008. During the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner/tenant prayed for stay of the operation of the order passed by the Rent Controller. Whereupon, the appellate authority passed the conditional order directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.19 lakhs and that order also was complied with by the tenant.3. However, impugning and challenging the said order, this revision petition h...
State Express Transport Corp. Ltd., and ors. Vs. Arasu Viraivu Pokkuva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. The State Express Transport Corporation is the appellant and the appeal has been filed against the order passed in W.P.No.9332 of 2008, dated 23.07.2008.2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, which is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, formed by the workmen employed in the appellant corporation. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the appellant dated 27.10.2007 in so far as the decision to treat the period of absence without any intimation or prior sanction of leave and to treat the period of the alleged absence as leave and consequently direct the appellants to pay salary to the 54 data entry operators for a period during which they were kept out of employment, together with interest, as per the order dated 03.04.2006 in W.A.No.379/2006.3. The members of the respondent Union were working as conductors/technical staff and possessed knowledge in typing. The appellant ...
Saroja, and anr. Vs. the Inspector General of Prison, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. The petitioners 1 and 2 had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.2804 of 2000. The said Original Application had been transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.1024 of 2007.2. The petitioners, Saroja and Varathammal joined service on 05.04.82 and 03.07.82 respectively as Grade II Warder. Both the petitioners were granted Selection Grade on completion of their 10 years of unblemished service. When they were waiting for a promotional post of Grade I Warder, which is generally filled up from the post of Grade II Warder, the qualification prescribed by the Rule says that the promotion to the category of Grade I Warder shall be made on the ground of merit and ability and the seniority will be considered only when the merit and ability are approximately equal. However, the petitioners 1 and 2 participated in the year 1985 and 1998 selection, but, unfortunately, though the petitioners were sen...
Smt.Rukshana Deshpande. Vs. the Additional Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. The petitioner in Crl.OP No.8222 of 2007 is the Proprietrix of M/s.Dagger Die Cutting, Chennai -98 and she is arrayed as Accused No.1. The petitioner in Crl.OP No.8223 of 2007 is the Chief Executive Officer of the above said concern and he is the husband of Accused No.2 and he is arrayed as Accused No.2 in E.O.C.C.No.144 of 2006 pending of the file of the the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences, Egmore, Chennai.2. The above said petitioners filed Criminal Original Petitions to quash the above said case.3. Facts in brief for disposal of these petitions are as follows -[a] The respondent in these original petitions filed a complaint in E.O.C.C.No.146 of 2006 on the file of the above said Court for prosecuting the petitioners herein for the commission of the offences under Sections 9(1)(b)(i), 9(1)(bb)(i), 9(1)(bbb)9(i) and 9(1)(d)(i) r/w Section 9AA of Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended. As per the averments made in the complaint, the Accused No.1 na...
Shri.M.K.Dhanuka, and anr. Vs.Government of India Rep. by Dr.Suresh Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.251 of 2007 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore and the respondent herein has filed the above said complaint under Section 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 seeking prosecution of the petitioners and other accused for the alleged violation of Section 3(K)(i) of the Insecticides Act 1968. As per the complaint, the insecticide Inspector, who has been notified under Section 20 of the Insecticides Act 1968, was directed to draw four number of pesticides' samples from the allocated area namely Tamil Nadu during the remaining period of the financial year (with effect from October, 2004 to March 2005). In exercise of that haver, the said official has drawn sample of pesticide from M/s.N.S.M Fertilisers 6, Panchayat Complex, MTP Main Road, Thudiayalur, Coimbatore.2. It is further averred that the three identical originally sealed samples were taken from the premises of the pesticide dealer and in the...
Sumathi, and anr. Vs. Unnamalai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. This appeal is filed as against the decree and judgment dated 16.11.2001 made in A.S.No.128 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2000 made in O.S.No.281 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.2. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the defendant is the respondent herein.3. The appellants have filed the suit in O.S.No.281 of 1996 before the District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Chengam for declaration declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court, but the lower appellate Court has set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.4. The facts, which are narrated by the appellants in the plaint, are as follows:-Originally the suit schedu...
The Senior Postmaster Vs. Mrs. G. Nalini and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
(The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite parties to accept the amount of Rs.15100/- alongwith compensation of Rs.20000/- . The District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.7.5.2003 in O.P.No.1/2003.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful opposite party is the appellant. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal in brief: The complainants, who are wife and husband, have joined in the Public Provident Fund Scheme, initiated by the Government, run by the opposite party, elsewhere in the month of February 1999, jointly. Initially, on 6.2.1999, they have deposited a sum of Rs.5000/-, thereafter on 10.7.99, deposited a further sum of Rs.5000/-, and a further sum of RS.100/- on 11.2.2002. Including the interest payable by the opposite party, as per t...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »