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.
K.Nagamanickam. Vs. the Sub Collector, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The petitioner was employed as a Village Administrative Officer in Avalappampatti Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District. He was issued with a charge sheet dated 18.03.2005 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (Shortly "the Rules"), levelling four charges against him. Charge Nos.1 and 2 are that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- from one R.Soundararajan to take action on the application made by him relating to grant track rent permission and that he accepted a sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe from the said R.Soundararajan during July 2002 and the other charges are not relevant for this case. 2.An enquiry was conducted. Based on the enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect, vide order dated 02.01.2006 of the first respondent. In the meantime, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 16.07.2002. On the intervention of the Tamil Nadu Ad...
K.Senthilnathan. Vs. K.Senthilnathan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore. The respondent herein filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein claiming maintenance. The respondent/wife also filed proof affidavit for letting in evidence. At this stage, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop the proceedings on the ground that the Family Court, Chennai granted divorce declaring that the petitioner's wife is a person of unsound mind and as such she is disqualified from adducing evidence before the Court. The said Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is still in force. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has preferred this revision.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petiti...
T.Venkatesan.. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The petitioner has come before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.92, Adi Dravidar Welfare (SCP1) Department, dated 10.08.2009 and disburse the funds as per the above said G.O.Ms.No.92, Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare (SCP1) Department, dated 10.08.2009.2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to a Schedule Tribe known as "Malayali" (Hill Tribes) of Thiruvannamalai Distrit. He is an agriculturist and engaged in sheep rearing business. The petitioner applied to the respondents seeking financial assistance under various schemes like NSFDC (National SC & ST Finance Development Corporation) Scheme etc. Originally, the petitioner made an application for loan and that was forwarded to various authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner is alleged to have given further representations on various dates. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's application was favourably recommended through letter d...
Dr.S.Peer Mohamed .Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The petitioner obtained degree in Master of Veterinary Science in Surgery from the first respondent - University in the year 1987. He joined as Assistant Professor in the Department of Veterinary Surgery on 01.05.1990 in the first respondent - University. In the year 1998, he was conferred with the senior scale in the post of Assistant Professor, on completion of 8 years of service. Thereafter, he was granted Selection Grade in the year 2002. He is the Head of the Department of Veterinary Surgery.2. The petitioner sought permission to undergo full-time Ph.D., programme in the second respondent University. The first respondent passed an order dated 05.02.2004, granting permission to undergo Ph.D., (full-time basis) in the second respondent University.3. The petitioner successfully completed the Ph.D., programme in the second respondent University in the year 2008. The second respondent University granted provisional certificate on 20.10.2008.4. The first respondent University issued ...
Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/S. Ambatture Clothing Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The Revenue has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2009 passed in ITA.No.1363 of 2008. The assessment year pertains to 2003-04. The issue arose out of rectification order passed by the Assessing Authority by order dated 11.06.2007 invoking his power under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act.2. According to the Assessing Authority, the assessee, which is an export concern, claimed the benefits under Section 10A/10B of the Act, apart from claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, for the remaining 10% of the profits, which was to suffer tax, after applying Section 10A/10B of the Act. According to the Assessing Authority, such a claim made under Section 80HHC in respect of the remaining 10% of the profits amounted to a claim of double deduction, which was not permissible. On the said basis, the Assessing Authority took the view that the said issue was an apparent mistake on the face of the record, which he rectified by passing his ord...
T.Manivannan, and ors. Vs. the Director General of Police, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2010
1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent passed in RC No.A1/1416/2005, dated 22.07.2005 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to finalize the 'C' list on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioners in the range promotion board for the year 2004 and to grant such other further relief by this Court on the facts and circumstances of the case.2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have entered into the service as Grade-II Police Constables in the Chengelpet East, Kancheepuram District, Armed Reserve and subsequently, they were promoted as Grade-I Police Constables. After successfully completing their probation, they were qualified to participate before the range promotion board for their next promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve). The petitioners had participated in the range pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›