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.
The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram-d ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions are identical by consent, they are heard and disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner in W.P.No.5807 of 2003 is the Management of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division II (hereinafter referred to "as the Management). The second respondent was working as a driver in the petitioner management (hereinafter referred to "as the workmen"). The prayer in W.P.No.5807 of 2003 is for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in I.D.No.245 of 1997 dated 06.09.2001. The management has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.5336 of 2004 against the order in C.P. No.30 of 2002, filed by the workmen, to compute the wages due and payable to him based on the award in I.D.No.245 of 1997, which is impugned in W.P.No.5807 of 2003.3. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petitions are that, while the workmen was driving the bus in route No.102F from Madras to Arn...
Dr.Manimekalai. Vs. Mrs.Gomathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the Sub-Court, Mettur, in I.A.No.243 of 2008 in O.S.No.106 of 2003, this civil revision petition is filed by the landlord.2. Niggard and bereft of unnecessary details, the necessary and germane facts for the disposal of this revision would run thus:(i) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.106 of 2003 seeking the following main relief:- to direct the respondent/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner/plaintiff towards the damages and compensation.(extracted as such)(ii) It so happened that the revision petitioner/defendant, after filing the written statement, failed to participate in the proceedings; whereupon ex-parte judgment and decree were passed. (iii) Subsequently, E.P.was filed by the respondent herein. On receipt of E.P. notice only, the revision petitioner herein came to know about the ex-parte decree having been passed as against her. Whereupon I.A.No.243 of 2008 was filed by her ...
Madras Techno Marine Enterprises Ltd. and anr. Vs. Regional Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions are common and both writ petitions have been filed by the same writ petitioners they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.2. The prayer in W.P.No.2464 of 2003 is for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent, the Registrar of Companies to strike off the name of the first petitioner company bearing registration No.6168 of 1972 from the register of companies in terms of Section 3(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to "as the Act").3. The prayer in W.P.No.17120 of 2003 is for issuance of writ of issue a writ of Declaration to declare the general circular No.13/2003 dated 25.03.2003, issued by the first respondent herein as ultra vires the provisions of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 3(5), 560, 642 and Regulations 75 of Table-A to Schedule-I of the Companies Act, 1956 in so far as the petitioner is concerned.4. Heard Mr.Aravind.P.Datar, Senior ...
S.Ravikumar, and ors. Vs. R.M.Manivasagam, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. As all the matters arise out of the miscellaneous orders passed in a suit i.e. E.A.Nos.3 and 10 of 2006 filed in E.P.No.61 of 2005 and also the attachment order passed in E.P.No.61 of 2005 in O.S.No.225 of 2003 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore, it is convenient to deal with them together.2. The facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in all the matters, are as follows:(a) The 1st respondent in C.M.A.No.3184 of 2008 and the sole respondent in both the revision petitions is one and the same person, by name, Manivasakam, who filed a civil suit in O.S.No.225 of 2003 as against the defendants, by name, Shanmugam and Baggyalakshmi, who are the revision petitioners, for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,84,200/- with interest stating that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.6.50 lakhs from him by executing a promissory note and also handed over the original sale deeds dated 10.09.1987 and 16.10.1988 in respect of the suit ...
R.Kesavan. Vs. C.Wilson, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.10,49,700/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.3635 of 2002 for the injuries sustained by the Claimant in a road traffic accident on 21.3.2002, the Appellant/Claimant has come forward with this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:On 21.3.2002, at about 6.15 hours, when the Appellant was walking on the northern side of Periya Salai, after getting down from the bus TN 021 N 0059 at Vanagaram, Kumar Theatre bus stop, a water tanker lorry bearing Regn.No.TN 01 L 0927 came from west to east at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus, due to which the bus got damaged and ran over the legs of the Appellant leading to the amputation of both the legs above knee and the death of other person. Appellant sustained grievous injury of amputation of both the legs above knee and sustained multiple internal and external injuries...
M.ChitrA. Vs. the Inspector of Police, Senthurai Police Station Ariyal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2010 and revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.699 of 2010 both have filed applications before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur in Crl.M.P.Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2010 respectively, for the interim custody of the vehicle JCB BOCLIN bearing Registration No. TN-46-E-3393. The learned Magistrate passed common order dismissing both the petitions filed by the respective petitioners, holding that both the petitioners are not entitled for the interim custody since the investigation is pending. Aggrieved by that order, both the petitioners have preferred the above said revisions.2. The case of petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2010, Tmt.Chitra, is that she entered into hire purchase agreement with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and purchased the vehicle in question and it was agreed by her to pay the total loan amount in 35 monthly instalments and the monthly instalment was fixed as Rs.61,180/-. The loan was obtained on 21.10.2006 and thereafter 16 in...
Sivaprakasam. Vs. Ilangovan, Rep.by Power Agent Sundaramoorthy, and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. The unsuccessful 1st defendant is the appellant. This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 19.10.2001 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.59 of 2001, whereby the decree and judgment dated 22.11.2000 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sirkali, in O.S.No.116 of 1996 were confirmed.2. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.116 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sirkali, against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein as defendants 1 to 3, to hand over the possession of the suit property and also for future mesne profits.3. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, is as follows:-The 1st defendant is the paternal uncle of the plaintiff. The suit property is the self acquired property of the grandfather of the plaintiff, viz., Govindasamy Padayachi, who had two sons Kanagasabai Padayachi (father of the plaintiff) and Sivaprakasam, who is the 1st defendant. T...
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. M/S. Ford (India) Pvt. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. Heard both sides. The respondents obtained two EPCG licenses for import of capital goods duty-free against export obligation within a specified period. It is the case of the Department that while fulfilling the export obligation against two licences the respondents included vendor manufactured components with the goods manufactured by them. It was subsequently clarified by the DGFT that the respondents cannot include the value of such vendor manufactured components. The present dispute has arisen as the respondents subsequently wanted to account for some of the exports made in one licence to be accounted under the other to meet the shortfall arising out of inclusion of vendor manufactured components. When the matter was heard earlier it was suggested by the Bench that the issue should be sorted out with the licensing authority as to whether such a shifting of export from one licence to another is permissible under the earlier law in force. The respondents have approached the DGFT au...
M/S. Soundararaja Mills Ltd Vs. Cce, Madurai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. Heard the learned SDR. The appeal was posted on 7.5.2010 for hearing. But it was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the appellants. Subsequently it has again been adjourned on 28.5.2010, 18.6.2010 and 29.7.2010. As such the matter has been adjourned four times earlier and again another request for adjournment has been received from the learned counsel for the appellants. No justification has been given for seeking adjournment for the fifth time. The law permits only three adjournments. It appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal as evident from repeated adjournments sought. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....
Natarajan. Vs. A.Marimuthu (Deceased), and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. The Appellant/Respondent/Defendant has preferred this Second Appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1994 in A.S.No.111 of 1992 made on the file of the Learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.2.The First Appellate Court viz., Learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in the Judgment in A.S.No.111 of 1992 dated 29.4.1994 has among other things observed that 'admittedly construction by Veerammal was put up only in part of the property and not in the entire property, that too in the year 1981. No exclusive possession adverse and hostile to the interest of the plaintiff to his knowledge for the statutory partition of 12.5 years is established in the present case and in the absence of any such proof, the finding of the Trial Court that Veerammal has prescribed title by adverse possession is not legally sustainable. The mere non-participation of the plaintiff in the profits of the property and exclusive possession however by one co-owner long the period,...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »