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.
Prakash. Vs. the Secretary to the Government, 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 dated 12.4.2010 in Memo No.209/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 the ...
The Special Officer, Villupuram Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Vs. G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank, which is registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It was established in the year 1917. It has been earning good income, by receiving deposits from the public and lending it to the members and collecting the principle and interest.2.The first respondent was working as a Junior Assistant in the petitioner-Bank. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 08.09.1995, as he committed serious misconduct. Later, a charge memo dated 04.12.1995 was issued alleging that he involved in misappropriation of funds. Based on an enquiry, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 25.10.1996. Along with the first respondent, the Manager of the petitioner - Bank was also dismissed from service. Both of them have filed Revision Petitions questioning the order of dismissal. While, the Revision Petition preferred by the Manager was allowed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Villupuram, the Revision Petition filed b...
Manju @ Manjunath. Vs. the Secretary to the Government, 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 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 45...
M.Karuppasamy .Vs. the Director of Rural Development Panagal Buildings ...
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 ...
Mattu Sekar. Vs. the Secretary to the Government, 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 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 the...
Rajesh Das, I.P.S. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question. 2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh...
Rajeswari. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, and ors.
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 Code...
SelvIn therasa, and ors. Vs. Devarajan,director of School Education an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the order passed by this Court, on 31.10.2008, in W.P.No.2885 of 2001, had been complied with. 2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had also submitted that the respondents had complied with the order passed by this Court, on 31.10.2008. In such circumstances, as no further orders are necessary, this Contempt petition stands closed. 27.08.2010...
M/S.Fayshaw Apparels. Vs. Mr.B.P.Byram Shaw Managing Partner of M/S.Fa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. These Appeals arise out of the Order of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi dated 28.5.2010 in Appeal Nos.91, 92, 93 and 94 of 2010 rejecting the applications for dispensation of pre-deposit and directing the Appellants to make payment of full amount of penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and holding that on failure to make full payment the appeals will be dismissed on that ground. M/s.Fayshaw Apparels is the appellant in C.M.A.No.2101 of 2010, M/s.Shaw Garments Pvt.Ltd. is the appellant in C.M.A.No.2103 of 2010 and B.P.Byram Shaw, the Managing Partner/Managing Director of the said firm and Company is the Appellant in C.M.A.Nos.2102 and 2104 of 2010.2. The brief facts are that the Appellant firm/Company are exporters of garments covered by eight shipping bills through ICD, Irugur, Coimbatore and the same were exported through Tuticorin Port. The value of the outstanding export proceeds is Rs.1,13,20,461/- in respect of M/s.Fayshaw Apparels and...
Thiru. Allimuthu. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. This petition is brought forth by the father of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent dated 12.4.2010 in his office Ref.No.C3.D.O. No.25/2010, whereby his son Palani was ordered to be detained as a Bootlegger 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) Pernambut Police Station Crime No.659 of 2008 for the offence under Section 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937; (ii) Pernambut Police Station Crime No.733 of 2009 for the offence under Section 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937; (iii) Pernambut Police Station Crime No.48 of 2010 for the offence under Section 4(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937; and (iv) Vellore Pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »