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.
A. Manickam, and ors. Vs. District Backward Classes and Minorities Wel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. All the petitioners, working as Hostel Warden in Namakkal District of various Government Boys Hostel, have filed the present petition challenging the order of recovery passed by the respondents on the ground that the Accountant General, Chennai, raised objection that the food charges for the month from August, 1994 to November, 1994, incurred by the petitioners by paying the increased rate, was not permissible.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there has been a direction to all the Hostels to purchase the rice only from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. The Government also passed an order fixing the rate per kilo for the items to be purchased from the concerned outlets. As per the above said direction, when the Hostel Wardens were purchasing the rice from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation increased the rate of rice from Rs.2/- to Rs.3.75/- per k.g. Therefore, the petitioners/Hostel Wardens were co...
S. Karuppan. Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is brought forth by one S.Karuppan alleging that his wife Mrs. Alamelu, aged 38 years, who is the first detenue and his minor daughter Moliya, aged about 12 years were taken to police custody. When a complaint was given, no answer is forthcoming. Hence, the petitioner went to the fourth respondent-police station on 31.7.2010 and enquired about the detenus, but he could not get proper answer. Under such circumstances, he has filed the present habeas corpus petition.2. In reply, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the wife of the petitioner is involved in pick-pocket case and a case was registered by Perambalur police station against her in Crime No.768 of 2009 and a case was registered against the minor daughter in Crime No.768 of 2009 and both were remanded by the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur on 5.8.2010 and thus, they are in judicial remand.3. In view of the answer given by the learned counsel appearing for the State an...
S.Singaravelu. Vs. General Manager, Southern Railways, Chennai, and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. The appellant challenges the order dated 13.07.2007 in W.P.No.13196/2001 confirming the award dated 06.06.2001 in I.A.No.485/2001 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai.Facts in brief :-2.The appellant was an employee under the Southern Railway at Madras. While he was functioning as clerk, he was issued with a charge memo dated 23.07.1986 alleging that he has misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,070/- during December 1984 by making false entries in the railway records to appear as if he has refunded the said amount on the basis of a cancellation slip. The appellant submitted his explanation on 27.06.1987 denying the charges levelled against him. According to the appellant, he was on duty in the counter on 15.12.1984 and the refund was made based on cancellation endorsed by the cancelling Clerk accompanied by a refund application. Refund was made only to the person who presented the same across the counter.3.The explanation submitted by the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax-vi. Vs, M/S. Electromags
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. The Revenue has come forward with these appeals, raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax and excise duty have to be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s.80HHC in relation to export profits?"2. The question is no longer res integra, inasmuch as the same is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 290 ITR 667 (CIT vs. Lakshmi Machine Works). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered the question as under in paragraph 18. "18. .... The object of the legislature in enacting Section 80-HHC of the Act was to confer a benefit on profits accruing with reference to export turnover. Therefore, turnover was the requirement. Commission, rent, interest, etc. did not involve any turnover. Therefore, 90 per cent. of such commission, interest, etc. was excluded from the profits derived from th...
Malarvizhi. Vs. the Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Ex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. Challenge is made to an order of detention made by the second respondent in BDFGISSV No.101/2009 dated 20.10.2009, whereby the husband of the petitioner Ramesh @ Samy @ Thirulogachandar was ordered to be detained under the Act 14 of 1982 branding him as "Goonda".2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.3. Concededly, pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in 21 cases viz. (1)R3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Crime No.747 of 2009 for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (2) R3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Crime No.830 of 2009 for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (3) S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.504 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (4) S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime N...
Mrs. Banu. Vs. the Superintendent,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. The grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that her husband is involved in criminal case and he is kept in solitary confinement, which would be infringement of his fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, it is a fit case to issue a writ of habeas corpus.2. In answer to the above, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the detenu Saravanan @ Thiruttu Saravanan was confined in Security Block-I where 42 prisoners were confined. Along with him, the other prisoners were in Cell. Numbers were also given. The averments made by the petitioner that the detenu is solitarily confined is not correct.3. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the habeas corpus petition as if the detenu is in solitary confinement cannot be accepted. The habeas corpus petition stands disposed of accordingly....
S. Manivannan. Vs. the District Collector,and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from carrying on liquor business through wine shop bearing Licence No.11425 situated at Singavaram Road Sundaravinayagar Koil Street junction, Ginjee, Villupuram District.2. The petitioner, who is a permanent resident of house bearing Door No.60-C, Singavaram Road, Gingee, has filed this writ petition contending that the wine shop No.11425 is located at Singavaram Road and Sundaravinayagar Koil Street junction, Gingee, which is opposite to District Munsif Court and Additional District Court, Gingee, and within a distance of 50 meters of temples viz., Sundara Vinayagar Temple, Saibaba Mandir, Krishnan Temple and Parasakthy Vazhipattu Mandram. The petitioner further states that the said wine shop is open from 8.00 a.m. upto mid night on all days and by virtue of the location of the said liquor shop at the said junction, general public, worshippers, school going students and litigants as well as A...
M.Subramaniyan. Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. The petitioner was appointed as a Gang Mazdoor in Highways Department on 15.11.1969 in Nagapattinam Division of rest while composite Thiruvarur District. He was brought to regular establishment from 01.01.1977. Thereafter, he was promoted as Road Inspector by the Superintending Engineer in his proceeding dated 07.09.1980.2. The petitioner served as Road Inspector from 19.09.1980 to 09.06.1986. He was reverted by the order of the Superintending Engineer,Trichy in his proceeding dated 24.04.1986 from the post of Road Inspector to Gang Mazdoor with effect from 10.06.1986. He was not successful in challenging the reversion order. After his reversion, he did not attend the duties. He reported sick and applied for medical leave with effect from 10.06.1986 onwards. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Thiruthurai Poondi directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board on 06.12.1986. Accordingly, he appeared before the Medical Board. The Medical Board recommended medical leave for t...
R.Bharathi, and ors. Vs. the District Elementary, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. On consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing.2. All these writ petitions are filed to quash the order of the second respondent dated 01.03.2007 in Na.Ka.No.1886/A1/2005, in and under which, the amount mentioned in the last column of the order against each of the petitioners representing the quantum of the salary received by the petitioners in their capacity as Headmasters Middle School, is sought to be recovered on the ground that their appointment as Headmasters Middle School for want of five years experience as B.T. Headmaster is contrary to the relevant G.O. pertaining to appointment. As all the writ petitions are for identical relief based against the order passed by the second respondent and is passed on same set of facts, involving identical issue, all the three writ petitions are disposed of by common order.3.The petitioners in W.P. Nos.18810 and 18811 of 2009 are issued with same order, whereas the petitioner in W.P. No.21834 of 2009 is issued with separate ...
N.S.Jayaraman and Sons. Vs. Government of India Rep.by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. In this petition, a challenge has been made to an order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings No.271/PW/NH/DB/D1/F.No.461/10-11 dated 24.05.2010 seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction on the respondents 2 to 4 to confirm and award the tender in favour of the petitioner for execution of the work according to the notification of the 4th respondent dated 30.06.2009 in accordance with the sanction and approval of the first respondent dated 14.12.2009.2. The Brief facts leading to the filing of this case in a nutshell are set out hereunder:(i) According to the petitioner, the 4th respondents vide his press notification dated 30.06.2009 invited tenders for Improvement of riding quality in K.M.16/122-24/000 of N.H.45A in Puducherry. The petitioner applied for a tender and filed his tender on 13.7.2010 quoting Rs.5,24,68,300/-(Rupees Five Crores Twenty four Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand and Three Hundred only). The petitioner claimed that he was declared as the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »