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.
G.Sundaramoorthy. Vs. the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. This case is a classic example as to how a benevolent legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act has been misused by unscrupulous persons to get compensation under the guise of a victim of a motor accident. More paining is the fact that the claimant is a Government servant. 2.Claimant is the appellant. Claimant, on dismissal of his claim petition in respect of the claim made and injury sustained, has come forward with this appeal.3. The case of the Appellant is that on 24.06.2002, he was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 04 C 1183 from Chidambaram to Bhuavanagiri on official duty. One Mr.Rasaiah was accompanying the appellant as pillion rider. While so, a private bus bearing registration no.TN-46-B-6129 dashed the appellant's motorcycle from behind. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained fracture on his left leg and his vehicle was also damaged. The pillion rider Mr.Rasaiya took the appellant to a private Hospital of one Dr.Senthilnathan, wherein the appellant was g...
P.Someshkandar. Vs. the District Collector, O/O the District Collector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. This review application has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment and order dated 20th October, 2009 passed in W.P.No. 10911 of 2009 whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.2. It appears that the petitioner filed the above mentioned writ petition being W.P.No.10911 of 2009 for a direction on the first and second respondents to decide the complaint/petition and thereby to remove the pig farm run by the fourth respondent namely, Vijayan. The said fourth respondent also filed a separate writ petition being W.P.No.13757 of 2009 for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17th July, 2009 passed by the first respondent for removal of the pig farm run by him. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court in terms of the judgment and order dated 20th October, 2009.3. The present petitioner alleged in the writ petition that the pig farm run by the fourth respondent is causing health hazard to the general publ...
Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Vs. M/S.Sakthi Sugars Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal and as framed at the time of admission is as under:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on setting up new sugar units in Orissa were allowable as a revenue expenditure on the ground that the said expenditure has been incurred for the expansion of the assessee's existing business ?"2. The assessment year was 1992-1993. The issue centres around the expenses relating to Baramba and Dhenkanal sugar units of the respondent. The respondent is having three different lines of manufacturing activities viz., Sugar Division, Distillery Division and Foundry Division.3. In the Sugar Division, its factory at Sakthi Nagar is situated in Periyar District, Tamil Nadu has been noted as Unit-I, its manufacturing unit at Padamathur, Sivaganga Taluk, P.M.T. District also in Tamil Nadu is called Unit-II and its manufacturing unit at...
N.K.Saminathan. Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. On Consent, writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed to quash the letter issued by the 1st respondent in his Letter No.13297/V1/2009-5 dated 11.08.2009 and the order of promotion given to the respondents 3 and 4 and few others in the 2nd respondent's proceedings Na.Ka.No.202560/E1-1/2008 dated 14.08.2009 and to consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to include the petitioner's name in the panel and to promote the petitioner as Secretary to the Regional Deputy Director. 3. The brief facts which are relevant for consideration herein are that the petitioner joined as Junior Assistant and thereafter periodically promoted as Assistant and Superintendent and was during the relevant point of time, the senior most Superintendent. The very next promotional cadre is Regional Secretary. The fact that the petitioner was the senior most Superintendent is evident from the list of seniority as on 01.09.2008 drawn on 10.10.2008 enclosed at page 10 of the typed ...
Rvs Dental College and Hospitals.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.05.2010 seeking to quash the same so far as it relates to the reduction in intake of students from 100 to 50 for admission in the academic year 2010 2011 in the petitioner's college and the consequential proceeding of the third respondent dated 29.06.2010.3. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Trust namely RVS Educational Trust, hereinafter referred to as the 'Trust'. He is also the Chairman of RVS Dental College and Hospitals, which was established by the Trust. The 1st and 3rd respondents granted permission to the Trust to establish the Dental College to impart education leading to grant of Degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery with an intake of 100 students from the academic year 200809. Respondents 1 and 3 duly recommended the same number of intake of students for the academic ye...
S.Dayanandam. Vs. State Rep. by Its Secretary, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. The petitioner while serving as Assistant Accounts Officer was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding for three charges. The first charge shows that he failed to hand over the charge to his successor before relieved on transfer to other place. The second charge shows that he had not produced statement of expenditure incurred for three PD cheques. The third charge alleges that failure to maintain absolute integrity on devotion to duty. 2. In view of the charge memo one and two, immediately after receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanations. Having not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after giving an opportunity to both the sides came to a conclusion that none of the charges leveled against the petitioner was proved. The Disciplinary Authority while differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effe...
Sheeba Philominal Merlin, and anr. Vs. the Repatriates Co-op Finance a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. "ABUSE", "MISUSE" Meaning of the above words is the facts of this case.2. The object of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 is to regulate Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and the Act came into force on 17-12-2002. The Act aims at speedy recovery of defaulting loans and to reduce the mounting levels of non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions. The Act has been passed based on the recommendations of Narasimham Committee I and II and Andhyarujina Committee constituted by the Central Government for the purpose of examining banking sector reforms and to consider the need for changes in the legal system in respect of these areas. The provisions of the would enable the banks and financial institutions to realise long-term assets, manage problems of liquidity and asset liability mismatches an...
Kallakurichi Co-op Sugar Mill Dhina Coolie Thozhilalar Sangam. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union. The third respondent is a Co-operative Sugar Mill. The NMR workers employed by the third respondent Mill are the Members of the petitioner Union. According to the petitioner Union, NMR workmen are employed for a long time, ranging from 20 to 25 years. They have been demanding regularization of their services, as they have put in such a long period of service. It is stated that they were all recruited through Employment Exchange as NMRs'. They are not only employed at the lowest level as Mazdoors, but also employed at other places, where vacancies arose and in those vacancies, they are employed for a long time. 2. Under such circumstances, the petitioner Union raised an Industrial Dispute relating to regularization of NMR workmen and the dispute was referred for adjudication, by the Government of Tamil Nadu, to the second respondent Labour Court. The second respondent Labour Court has taken the dispute on file as I.D.No.82 of 2009 and the s...
The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Velmurugan, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. The Insurance company has come forward with this appeal as against the award of Rs.2,78,635/- as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by the claimant/first respondent herein.2. The facts of the case was that on 26.06.2003, at 10.35 am, when the claimant was discharging his duties as conductor in the bus bearing Registration No. TN-31-E-2929, which was stationary in the cuddalore bus stand, the bus belonging to the first respondent bearing Registration No. PY-01-T-4242 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus in which the claimant was working as Conductor. In the impact, the claimant sustained fracture in his right clavicle, grevious injury in his left ear lobe, chest, right hand, head and multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately, the claimant was taken to Valli Vilas hospital, Cuddalore where he was admitted as an inpatient. Under those circumstances, the claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.3. Before the Court ...
Srinath Prasad.. Vs. State by Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 19.01.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Chennai, made in S.C.No.214 of 2001 convicting the appellant, who has been arrayed as A1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The learned trial Judge has not imposed any separate sentence for the offence under Section 498-A IPC as it is covered under Section 306 IPC also.2. There are three accused in this case, viz., A1 to A3 and the learned trial Judge disbelieving the prosecution case, acquitted A2 and A3 and convicted only A1/the appellant herein as stated above.3. The background facts of the case in a nutshell are hereunder :(i) A1 is the husband of the victim/Kumudini. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W....
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »