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.
Rangaiah Chetty, and ors.Vs. Feroz Khanoon, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. Inveighing the common order dated 26.08.2003 passed in RCA Nos.89,90 and 88 of 2000 respectively by the learned 8th Small Causes Judge at Madras, confirming the common order dated 30.08.1999 passed in RCOP Nos.2848, 2849 and 2846 of 1992 respectively by the learned 12th Small Causes Judge at Madras, these civil revision petitions are focussed by the tenants.2. Heard both sides.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these three revisions would run thus:The respondents herein filed as many as three RCOPs invoking Sections 10(2)(1) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act [amended Act 23 of 1973] (in short 'the Act') on the ground that there was willful default in payment of rent and that the demised premises is required for demolition and reconstruction. The matters were contested and common enquiry was conducted. Ultimately the Rent Controller ordered eviction, as against which appea...
K.Palanisamy. Vs. the Joint Sub Registrar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. The petitioner's father owned land to an extent of 7.68 acres in S.No.158/1, Neriparichal Village, Tiruppur Taluk and District. He died in the year 1973 leaving behind him, his wife, viz., the mother of the petitioner, and two sons and three daughters as his legal heirs. The petitioner is one of the sons. After the demise of his father, his mother and three sisters, executed a release deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother on 05.11.1975 and the same was registered in the office of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner's brother entered into a sale agreement on 09.01.1993 with the petitioner to sell his share. But, the petitioner's brother failed to execute the sale deed.2. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.292 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur. The Sub Court decreed the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.152 of 1993. In those circumstances, the Sub Court, Tiruppur executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner o...
N.S.Ramachandra Iyer.and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. All the four writ petitions 26843 to 26846 of 2009 are filed for issuing writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the common order passed by the first respondent on 07.12.2009 in revision petitions No.18, 19, 20 and 21/2007-D2 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to hand over the vacant site in question. As all the four writ petitions are filed against the common order, for identical relief based on identical set of facts involving identical issue and against the same respondents all the four writ petitions are disposed of by common order.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows :The respective father of the writ petitioners in WP.Nos. 26843, 26845 and 26846 of 2009 and the petitioner in WP.No.26844 of 2009 were allotted the vacant site belonging to the 3rd respondent temple at Salem for ground rent and the respective father of three petitioners and the other petitioner as above referr...
Pappireddy, and ors. Vs. Ramaswamy Reddy, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, in I.A.Nos.6 and 11 of 2010 in A.S.No.55 of 1989, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions would run thus: One Nanja Reddy filed the suit O.S.No.390 of 77 seeking partition. After contest, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, several appeals have been filed by various groups among the parties and those appeals were pending. (ii) While so, the revision petitioners herein, who happened to be D51 to D60, filed the I.A.No.6 of 2010 before the appellate Court with the following prayer: "to direct the respondents to get the leave of the Court by an application, before ever their counsel argues the new ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal in A.S.No.159 of 1988, that D1 schedule properties in the sui...
Suraj Auto Products Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. For reasons recorded below, we allow the application for stay and proceed to take up the appeal itself for final disposal as the identical issue stands decided by the Tribunal in an earlier case of the same exporter. 2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the request for amendment of ARE-1 forms covering molasses shipped from the respective factories after 9.11.07 which is the date of the “let export order”. We find that in the case of the same exporter, rejection of similar request has been set aside by the Tribunal in Final Order No.1196 to 1198/09 dt. 8.9.09 by allowing the appeals by modification of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and directing original authority to carry out the necessary amendments in the relevant shipping bills to reflect the ARE-1 form details as the goods transported under the ARE-1 have been exported subsequently and the exports have been duly certified. Following the same route in thi...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram On hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the Commissioner (Appeals), who, while holding that the appeal filed by the assessees against the communication of the Asst. Commissioner of the decision of the Commissioner to reject their request for conversion of shipping bill is not maintainable, has directed the department to issue an appealable speaking order after following the principles of natural justice, we find that it is possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so after rejecting the application for stay. We find that in an identical situation, in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai Vs M/s.Ador Welding Ltd. vide Final Order No.447/10 dt. 19.4.10, the Tribunal has upheld the impugned order directing issue of appealable speaking order. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....
M/S. Marvel Apparels and Another Vs. Cc, Tuticorin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. These are the appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 6 and 7/2010 dated 28.01.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants in Appeal No. C/184/2010 exported knitted garments by filing shipping bills No. 4810, 4811 both dated 26.12.98 and the appellants in Appeal No. C/195/2010 exported by filing shipping bills Nos. 6085, 6086 and 6089 all dated 29.12.98 and 6536 dated 30.12.98, and the goods were examined and cleared for export under Section 51 of the Act on or before 31.12.98. There was a dispute as to whether the goods were really exported as claimed by the appellants and the matter was settled by the Final Order of the Tribunal No. 271-292/08 dated 26.03.98. In pursuance of the Tribunal’s order, the draw back claims have been paid in October-08 and December-08 and interest was paid reckoning the due date for payment of interest from the date of receipt of the Tribunal’s order. The appellants claimed interest ...
Noorullah Sahib Liaquat Ali Vs. M/S.Hindustan Lever Limited, Investor ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent/ opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to issue a new balance certificate, to pay the entire value of 2370 from 1997, to pay Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.2.2007 in COP No.61/2004.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The appellant, having knocked the doors of the District Forum, leveling deficiency against the opposite party, failed, and the result is this appeal. 2. There was some dispute between the parties, regarding the shares held by he complainant, which originally owned and possessed by BBLIL, which amalgamated with the opposite party, lateron. The complainant, when attempted to transfer the shares, there was some dispute, as if already some of the shares have been transferred or somethi...
J. Jayasingh Vs. James Victor Raj
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
(This petition is filed to set aside the order in CMP.11/2010 IN COP No.54/2008 dt.9.4.2009.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The respondent has filed CC No.54/2008 on the file of District Forum, Theni, seeking certain reliefs, accusing deficiency. 2. As represented by the learned counsel for Revision petitioner, the Revision petitioner/ opposite party appears to have filed a civil case in OS.No.63/2008, on the file of District Court, Theni, for the same subject matter, and the said case is pending as part heard. Pending disposal of the said case, a petition has been filed before the District Forum, for the stay of the CC.54/2008, when the case was posted for filing proof affidavit of the opposite party. 3. The District Forum, considering the provisions available, as well as the powers vested in it, felt that it has no jurisdiction to stay the Civil Courts proceedings, and in this view, the petition came to be dismissed, as per order dt.9.4.2010, which is under challenge....
Kuthus, Proprietor and Another Vs. R. Anandan, Proprietor
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
(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 replace the old machine, with compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and cost. 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.27.6.2005 in O.P.No.413/2003.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent in this appeal, had purchased a lathe machine, from the 1st opposite party, which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, for a sum of Rs.1,47,000/-. The machine was installed on 16.7.2003, and it failed to function from 23.7.2003, thereby causing problems, which was reported to the 1st opposite party, who came and had taken photographs. The defective parts, inferior in quality, were not replaced, despite repeated demands and legal notice. Due to the defective supply, no production co...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »