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 State Express Transport Corporation, Vs. Chandra Ammal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. The civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellant-State Express Transport Corporation against the award dated 02.12.2003, made in MCOP No.512 of 2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Sub Court, Maduranthagam.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:One deceased Muthu met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 01.06.1995, at about 12.15 hours. The said deceased was travelling as a passenger in the bus belonging to the appellant bearing registration No.TN01 N0504. The said bus was proceeding from north to south direction and while nearing Edaiyalam bridge on the G.S.T.Road near Acharapakkam, a van bearing registration No.TCM 2097, belonging to the second respondent herein and insured with the fifth respondent Insurance Company herein, came from south to north direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus. Due to the impact, the bus was capsized and in the result, the claimant Muthu died on the spot. The claimants are the mother, b...
Balakrishnan @ Parthi Baskar . Vs. State Rep. by the Director Vigilanc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking direction to the respondent towards registration of a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 10.06.2009.2. The complaint of the petitioner reads as follows -I am residing at the above mentioned address. I got General Power from one Chinniyan and others for S.No.299/1A 1.76 Acre and S.No.230/7A. 3.00 Acres in Koyambedu Thirumangalam village. Some cases are pending between us and Sri Krishna Tiles Pottaries (P) Ltd. for the above mentioned land W.P.No.12613/01 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Madras. Moreover Sri Krishna Tiles Pottaries (P) Ltd. sold the above said 4.76 acres of land to Ozone Construction (P) Ltd. We have impleaded them as a party in W.P.No.12613/01 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. In the meanwhile on 20.07.2002 I sent my objections to CMDA not to issue planning permission in the above said 4.76 acres of land, till the disposal of W.P.No.1...
Shyam Sundar Singh, Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. This petition is brought forth by the detenu himself challenging the order passed by the second respondent in No.69/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 15.02.2010, whereby he was ordered to be detained as a "Goonda" under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.2. 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. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in four adverse cases viz. (i) V-3 J.J. Nagar Police Station Crime No.2576/2005 for the offences under Sections 448, 365, 385 and and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and (ii) K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No.1060/2009 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 394, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) V-1 Villivakkam Police Station Crime No.157/2010 for the offences under Sections 341, 384 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) V-5 Th...
G.Balasundaram. Vs. Union of India, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the selection list bearing No.59-7/2007/LD dated 22.02.2006, issued by the third respondent selecting Notary Public in so far as the Union Territory of Puducherry is concerned.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a practising Advocate in Pondicherry, who got enrolled as an Advocate on 20.01.1990 and he is practising in Civil, Criminal, Revenue, Consumer and Labour matters in Pondicherry. The petitioner submitted an application in September 2000 for appointing him as Notary Public of Pondicherry Government. The petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste community of Pondicherry origin. The petitioner's application submitted in September 2000 was not considered at all till 22.02.2006. According to the petitioner as per the Notaries Act, 1952, 100 Notary Public can be appointed by the Central Government in respect of Union Territory of Pondicherry and 100 Notaries can be appointed by the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry. As on the...
R.Guna ..Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu.and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. This petition is brought forth by the mother of the petitioner challenging an order of the second respondent in Memo No.206/2010 dated 12.04.2010, whereby the detenu was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982. 2.The affidavit in support of the petition and the grounds of detention are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in seven adverse cases namely (1) K 6 T.P.Chatram Police Station, Cr.No.748/2008 under section 379 IPC (2) G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, Cr.No.901/2008 under section 379 IPC (3) G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, Cr.No.931/2008 under section 379 IPC (4) G1 Vepery Police Station Cr.No.1029/2008 under section 379 IPC (5) F5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Cr.No.1467/2009 under section 302 IPC (6) F5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Cr.No.1502/2009 under sections 341, 336, 384, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC and (7) F...
M.Karuppasamy. Vs. the Director of Rural Development, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. The writ petitioner was appointed as record clerk in the office of Panchayat Union at Kovilpatti on 25.04.1962. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 25.04.1962. While so, he applied for leave with effect from 04.06.1963. As he was unauthorisedly absent for duty, without any leave application and prior permission of the Panchayat Union Commissioner from 04.06.1963 onwards, i.e., for more than 11 months, he was ousted from service. 2.Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal to give a direction to the first respondent, the Director of Rural Development, Saidapet, Chennai to appoint the petitioner. After perusing the materials, the 1st respondent granted an Interim order of stay of operation of the impugned order. As a result, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Subsequently, he was also joined duty on 04.02.1972. Later on, the first respondent in his proceedings No.F.3/185446/70 dated 12.04.1972 allowed the said appeal setting ...
R.Rajamanickam. Vs. the Assistant Director of Rural Development, and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.2.The petitioner was appointed as a Water Tank Motor Operator in the third respondent Panchayat, vide resolution dated 25.05.1999, on a consolidated salary of Rs.600/- per month. He has been paid Rs.600/- as monthly salary for the past 10 years. 3.While so, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2009 terminating the petitioner from service, based on the proceedings dated 30.09.2008 of the fourth respondent, the proceedings dated 25.10.2008 of the Assistant Director of Rural Development, Salem and the proceedings dated 19.12.2008 of the Block Development Officer. 4.Admittedly, the aforesaid proceedings are not furnished to the petitioner. It is not known on what basis the petitioner was terminated from service. It is well settled that before passing any order resulting in serious civil consequences, the concerned person should be heard before passing such order, as held by the H...
S.Jayakumar.Vs. State by the Inspector of Police.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. There is no representation for the petitioner. After getting the Criminal Original Petition admitted and interim stay of the proceedings before the trial court, the petitioner had chosen to drag on the matter for more than three years. Having not chosen to evince interest in having the matter argued, paving the way for an order being pronounced on merit, in the past on many occasions, either there was absence of representation or representation simply seeking adjournments. Having noted the above attitude of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court, on 16.07.2010 itself, while granting an adjournment on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, made an observation that no further request for adjournment would be entertained. However, subsequent thereto, on three occasions, this court showed indulgence and granted adjournments at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today, the counsel is absent and no arrangement has been made to make a repres...
Duraisamy.Vs. Gnanasekaran, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. The first respondent herein was acquitted by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No.68 of 2007, from the charges under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 and 203 of IPC. Challenging the said acquittal, the petitioner herein, father of the deceased who was examined as P.W.1 in this case has preferred this criminal revision.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Kalaiselvi is the daughter of P.W.1 and sister of P.W.2. About 14 years prior to the death of the deceased, the marriage of Kalaiselvi was performed with the accused who was working as a police constable. After the marriage, the deceased also gave birth to two female children. Ten years after the marriage, the accused developed a habit of consuming liquor and started to harass the deceased. The accused used to assault the deceased and one such time, her tooth was broken. Both the accused and the deceased was staying in the police quarters at Perundurai. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the neighbours who were al...
Manju @ Manjunath. Vs. the Secretary to the Government.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. This petition is brought forth by the detenu himself challenging the order passed by the second respondent in S.C. No.44/2009 dated 16.11.2009, whereby he was ordered to be detained as a "Goonda" under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. 2. 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. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in four adverse cases viz. (i) Hosur Police Station Crime No.1084/2008 for the offences under Sections 402,304, 394 read with 397, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and (ii) Thally Police Station Crime No.147/2009 for the offences under Sections 457, 511 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Thally Police Station Crime No.171/2009 for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv)Royakottai Police Station Crime No.232/2009 for the offences under Sections...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »