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.
R.Murugesan. Vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police Cciw, Ooty,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.33 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore and he was convicted for the offences under Section 409 and 477-A IPC, but he was not sentenced instead he was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Aggrieved by the conviction, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:Totally there are two accused in this case. The first accused was the Manager of the "Salisbury Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Limited" at Gudalur and the second accused/petitioner was the cashier. P.W.1, the Special Officer went to the factory on 14.12.2001 and checked the accounts. At that time, in the cash chitta, the balance was shown as Rs.5,69,364.57, but the actual cash available with the cashier of the second accused was only Rs.5,26,143/-. There was a shortage of Rs.43,221.57. The said amount was misappropriated by the second accused...
K.Kunhi MoosA. Vs. P.Sambandam Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 23.04.2008 passed in RCA No.453 of 2004 by the VIII Court of Small Causes, Madras, in confirming the order dated 06.02.2004 passed in RCOP No.807 of 1997 by the XIII Court of Small Causes, Madras, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:(i) The respondent herein filed the RCOP No.807 of 1997 invoking Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1960 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act] on the ground of requiring the premises for demolition and reconstruction. The matter was contested. (ii) On the side of the landlord, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P62 were marked. On the side of the tenant, R.W.1 to R.W.11 was examined and Exs.R1 to R23 were marked. Ultimately the Rent Controller ordered eviction, as against which appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismisse...
M.Sampath. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and Ors,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the fourth respondent dated 08.06.2010 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to comply with the proportional representation to the teaching staff belonging to SC/ST as per the provision of the constitution.3. The petitioner herein, is appointed in SC category as lecturer in Commerce from 13.07.2000 in the fourth respondent institution. While he was working so, the petitioner made repeated representations to the fourth respondent college management to include him in the selection committee for admission of students to UG and PG courses in his capacity as the only teaching staff belonging to SC/ST category. The facts made available herein would reveal that there is no cordial relationship maintained between the petitioner and the college management and the petitioner was during September 2007 issued with letter of warning for his alleged act of usi...
A.Kumaran, and anr. Vs. M/S.Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu Private Limited, a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in E.P.No.3010 of 2008 in A.R.C.No.1646 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am of the view that no notice is required to be ordered to be served on the respondents.3. The short facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The first respondent herein obtained the award dated 11.12.2007, for recovery of money as against three persons,viz., R2 herein and the revision petitioners 1 and 2. Thereafter E.P.No.3010 of 2008 was filed for attaching the salary of those Judgment Debtors. The principal debtor/judgment debtor-1/R2 herein was set exparte by the lower court and the guarantors/judgment debtors 2 and 4/ the revision petitioners herein resisted the petition by filing a counter stating that the respondent/decree holder/R1 herein did not take any action against...
N.P.K.R.R. Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. As the issue involved in these writ petitions is covered by our order passed in W.P.Nos.50111, 50189 and 50190 of 2006, following the same, these cases also stand disposed of on merits.2. The petitioner is common in all the writ petitions and is one of the appellants before the Tribunal, in which a common order came to be passed by the Tribunal dated 02.04.2007 in T.A.Nos.1173, 1174, 1175 & 1176 of 2001 and STA Nos.1446, 1289, 1447 and 1401 of 2001. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts relating to the petitioner in W.P.No.31554 of 2007.3. The Assessment Order pertains to 1993-94. The assessment was completed on 31.07.1997. The assessment was however revised by an order dated 31.3.1999 under section 16 of the TNGST Act. The petitioner is Sugar Mills. The petitioner in W.P.No.31554 of 2007 procured sugarcane for crushing from sugarcane growers. It is common ground that by virtue of Section 3 of t...
Cce, Chennai Vs. M/S. International Business Forms
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. These two appeals by the department arise out of a common order in appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 11 and 12/10 (M-IV) dated 19.03.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents were found to have cleared the goods in excess of Rs. One crore in value during the period from April - 06 to 18.01.07. The respondents totally paid a sum of Rs. 2,74,521/- in three installments on 23.03.07, 29.05.07 and 2.7.07. The respondents also paid a sum of Rs. 14,105/- towards interest. 3.2. The original authority by an order dated 22.09.08 confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,66,852/- only and interest of Rs.13,432/- only. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,66,852/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3.3. The respondents subsequently paid a sum of Rs. 66,713/- on 30.10.08 towards penalty in terms of first proviso to Section 11AC. 3.4. The respondent claimed refund of Rs. 8,342/- (Rs. 7,669 as excess paid duty and Rs. 673/- as excess paid in...
The Managing Director, Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Vs. A. Vi ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,81,320/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.10.2007 in COP No.12/2006.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 2nd respondent/ 2nd complainant, had purchased a Mahindra Champion Auto, manufactured by Mahindra and Mahindra, from its dealer SJP Motors, on 23.6.2005, for which this opposite party financed. The user of the vehicle, by the 2nd complainant, proved to be not worthy, since it had manufacturing defect, causing other related problems. Because of the problems, since it was not rectified, the complainant felt there was deficiency in service, and therefore, he has filed the case against the financier alone, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,81,32...
The Editor, Branch Office and Another Vs. R. Balaguru
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants / opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.14,75,000/- as compensation on various heads. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation alongwith cost of Rs.1000/-. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.26.7.2007 in O.P.No.6/2005.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent in this case, as complainant, leveling several allegations against the opposite parties, as if they have committed deficiency to the consumer, and practiced unfair trade practice, in publishing incorrect news, especially regarding the cricket test, has filed a case before the District Forum, for the recovery of money, under different headings, totaling a sum of Rs.14,75,000/-, which includes recovery of ...
K.Solomon, Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. Challenging the order of the respondent dated 04.08.2008 dismissing the petitioner from service without conducting any enquiry, the present writ petition has been filed.2. The facts that led the petitioner to file the writ petition, as put forth by him in his affidavit in support of the writ petition are stated here under:(a) The petitioner was appointed as a II Grade Warder on 25.03.1998. While he was working at Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, the first respondent by his order dated 02.08.2008 placed him under suspension on initiation of Criminal proceedings against him in Crime No.11/2008. It was stated in the order of suspension that he demanded a bribe of Rs.8000/- from Sivashanmugam for arranging separate cell and for providing facilities to his friends. It was stated further that the said Sivashanmugam preferred a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and anti-corruption) on 01.08.2008 based on which a trap was organised and he was arrested and re...
M.Kulandaivelu. Vs. the Deputy Director of Fire Service, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. The petitioner M.Kulandaivelu challenged the impugned order imposing punishment of censure passed by the second respondent the Divisional Fire Officer, Ramnad Division, Ramnad District on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order imposing punishment of censure is in total violation of principles of natural justice for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner had already given complaint on 26.4.1999 against the very same second respondent making serious allegation of demanding Rs.1000/= from the petitioner. Even prior to that complaint dated 26.4.1999, the petitioner had made two more complaints one on 11.11.1998 and another on 17.11.1998. By keeping in mind the complaints made by the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was initiated only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. Secondly, the imposition of the punishment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »