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.
Rajeswari Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. This petition is brought forth by the wife of the detenu viz. Mohan @ Ravikumar @ Mundakkan Mohan, challenging the order of the second respondent in P.D. No.04/2010 dated 8.3.2010, 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) Boothapandy Police Station Crime No.481 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Thisayanvilai Police Station Crime No.358 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 363, 201 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Eppodumventran police station Crime No.43 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Co...
Saravanan, Vs. the State of Tamilnadu.and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. This petition is brought forth by the husband of the detenue challenging the order passed by the second respondent in C.No.09/G/IS/2010 dated 7.4.2010, whereby the detenue S. Shanthi was ordered to be detained as a "Drug Offender" 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 detenue is involved in four adverse cases viz. (i) Coimbatore NIB CID Crime No.84/2008 for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, 1985 (ii) Coimbatore NIB CID Crime No.157/2008 for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, 1985; (iii)Coimbatore NIB CID Crime No.112/2009 for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) and 31 NDPS Act, 1985; (iv)Coimbatore NIB CID Crime No.113/2009 for the o...
Shyam Sundar Singh Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and anr.
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 ...
Mattu Sekar.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 dated 12.4.2010 in Memo No.208/BDFGISSV/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 two adverse cases viz. (i) R-7 K.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No.193/2010 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 394 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and (ii) R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Crime No.208/2010 for the offences under Sections 341, 384 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.197 of 2010 registered by R-7 K.K. Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 394, 307 and 506(ii) of t...
Rangesh,vs. State by Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. "Children are the world's most valuable resource and its best hope for the future" John Fitgerald Kennedy (American 35th US President)."Child abuse casts a shadow the length of a lifetime" Herbert Ward.The appellant/accused, a Physical Training Teacher of a School, who has been tried and convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment on the allegation of committing heinous crime of rape on a 9 years old school girl, has come forward with this appeal questioning the legality of the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court -I), Chengalpattu dated 7.11.2006 made in S.C.No.317/2005. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is hereunder:2.1. The accused was working as a Physical Training Teacher in a School at Chennai. PW1, aged about 9 years was studying 4th standard in the same School.2.2. On 17.6.2003, the accused cond...
The Commissioner of Income-tax-ii, Vs. M/S. Wellington Gymkhana Club.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue for the assessment year 2001-02 to 2005-06, challenging the order of the Tribunal wherein, the Tribunal has allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee, in part by holding that receipts from investment with Bankss are covered by the Principle of Mutuality, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income from interest on investments with Banks is exempt from tax on the Principle of Mutuality is valid? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, Mutuality Principles will apply to the facts of this case, even though that the receipts did not arise from any dealing between the assessee club and its members, and the transactions were with third parties and were clearly tainted with commerciality?" 2. The facts o...
R.Rajamanickam.Vs. the Assistant Director of Rural Development, and or ...
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 ...
Rangesh. Vs. State by Inspector of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. "Children are the world's most valuable resource and its best hope for the future" John Fitgerald Kennedy (American 35th US President)."Child abuse casts a shadow the length of a lifetime" Herbert Ward.The appellant/accused, a Physical Training Teacher of a School, who has been tried and convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment on the allegation of committing heinous crime of rape on a 9 years old school girl, has come forward with this appeal questioning the legality of the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court -I), Chengalpattu dated 7.11.2006 made in S.C.No.317/2005.2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is hereunder:2.1. The accused was working as a Physical Training Teacher in a School at Chennai. PW1, aged about 9 years was studying 4th standard in the same School.2.2. On 17.6.2003, the accused condu...
M/S.Endo Labs Limited. Vs. the Managing Director M/S.Tamil Nadu Medica ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. The first respondent - Corporation is a Nodal agency for procurement and distribution of Drugs, Surgical and Suture items for about 11,000 Government Medical Institutions all over Tamil Nadu. For the said purpose, the first respondent called for tenders. The petitioner was the successful tenderer for the supply of Povidone Iodine Solution I.P. 5% for the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. On being successful tenderer, the first respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the supply of the aforesaid drug. The agreement provides for quality testing of the drug and medicines supplied by the suppliers. Samples of each batch of each product supplied, would be drawn at the point of supplies / distribution / storage and would be sent by the purchaser to the different analytical laboratories selected by them at their discretion for testing. On being successful in the quality test as stated above, the first respondent would instruct its warehouses for the supply of such items of ...
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »