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.
S.Deepak. Vs. D.AnithA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1.The Review petition, in Review Petition No.108 of 2010, has been filed against the order, dated 20.4.2010, made by this Court, in Tr.C.M.P.No.422 of 2009. The said petition, in Tr.C.M.P.No.422 of 2009, had been filed seeking to withdraw M.C.No.35 of 2007, filed for maintenance, on the file of the Family Court, Salem, and to transfer the same to the Family Court at Chennai..2. The Review petition, in Review Petition No.109 of 2010, has been filed against the order, dated 20.4.2010, made by this Court, in Tr.C.M.P.No.423 of 2009. The said petition, in Tr.C.M.P.No.423 of 2009 had been filed seeking to withdraw G.O.P.No.1 of 2008, on the file of the Family Court, Salem, and to transfer the same to the Family Court at Chennai.3. The Review petition, in Review Petition No.110 of 2010, has been filed against the order, dated 20.4.2010, made by this Court, in Tr.C.M.P.No.424 of 2009. The said Tr.C.M.P.No.424 of 2009 had been filed seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.131 of 2007, on the file of th...
The State Express Transport Corporation. Vs. Chandra Ammal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
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...
P. Sivakumar . Vs. Ponnusamy, and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1.This revision petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 186 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Judge, Erode for specific performance directing the defendants/respondents herein to execute sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance sale consideration to be deposited into the Court, in default, the Court may execute the sale deed; put the plaintiff into possession of the suit property and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from alienating or encumbering the suit property till the disposal of the suit.3. It is seen from the recoreds that the suit was referred to the Lok Adalat for exploring the possibility of settlement of the dispute. Before the Lok Adalat, the parties themselves have settled the matter and the terms of settlement were reduced into writing and based on the same, a...
D.Kothandaraman. Vs. He Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31.1.2007, made in A.S.No.70 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram, confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Munsif Court, Chidambaram, dated 16.3.2005, made in the suit, in O.S.No.62 of 2003.2. At this stage of the hearing of the second appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had submitted that the appellant is willing to pay a sum of Rs.7,290/-, as per the memo issued by the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board demanding the said sum, for shifting the high tension lines passing over the property said to be belonging to the appellant. The copies of the letters, dated 15.5.2010 and 14.7.2010, issued on behalf of the appellant, to the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chidambaram, had been placed before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, wherein the appellant had expressed his willingness to pay the a...
State of Tamil Nadu. Vs. Selvaraj , and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. The second appeals are arising out of a Common Judgment passed in civil miscellaneous appeal Nos 16 to 19 /2004. The Civil miscellaneous appeals arose out of order of the Special Tahsildar,( Adi Dravidar Welfare), Harur dated 24.1.2000. The Government had decided to acquire land to provide house site patta to the Adi Dravida People, living in Kottapatti village, Harur. The patta lands in S.No.90.2,90.3, 92.1A,92.1B totalling 8.06 acres were decided to be acquired. The Notification under Sec.3(1) and 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Welfare Act 1978 and Land Acquisition Act 31 of 1978 were issued and 4(1) Notification was published on 19.9.1999.2. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition conducted award enquiry and to fix the land value, 25 sales particulars were collected. On verification of various sales and also comparing the lands, the acquiring officer relied on the sale dated 28.5.1999 for the sale of S.No.55/1A and S.No.54/2 and fixed the value of the land at Rs.84,650/-per hect...
S.Ramalingam, and ors. Vs. Andal Ammal, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 21.1.2008, made in A.S.No.31 of 2006, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 28.7.2006, made in O.S.No.31 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.2. The plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.31 of 1997, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein.3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit, in O.S.No.31 of 1997, praying for a decree, declaring the plaintiffs' right, in respect of the suit property and to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs, free from obstructions and to direct the determination of future mesne profits, by way of separate proceedings, under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and for costs.4. The suit property had, originally, belonged to Thangavel Chettiar, the paternal uncle of the first plaintiff. Plaintif...
The Executive Officer Vs. Ravindran
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.29.12.2006 in COP No.64/2006.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1. The respondent in this appeal, as complainant approached the District Forum, as if Andipatti Special Village Panchayat has committed deficiency in service, since it failed to rectify the water taps, thereby causing mental agony, for which appropriate direction should be issued. 2. The opposite party, though served, failed to appear before the court, and without knowing what could be the defense of the opposite party, purely based upon the averments in the complaint alone, a direction came to be issued, as seen from the order dt.29.12.2006, directing the o...
The Maritime Collector, and ors. Vs. M/S.Madura Coats Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1.This Writ Appeal arises out of the Order of the learned single Judge dated 3.1.2001 passed in W.P.No.11228 of 1992 allowing the Writ Petition and quashing the order of Maritime Collector and thereby holding that the Respondent is entitled to rebate of Central Excise duty, being the duty paid on the yarn used for making thread.2. Brief facts are that the Respondent has filed four rebate claims for a sum of Rs.2,03,586.24, Rs.70,647.56, Rs.2,03,586.24 and Rs.2,13,765.55, being the duty paid on the yarn content of thread, exported under AR4A Nos.52/88-89 dated 26.09.1988, 44/88-89 dated 26.8.1988, 58/88-89 dated 09.11.1988 and 72/88-89 dated 08.03.1989 respectively. It was observed that the Respondent received single S.S.Polyester Yarn of 60/1 from M/s.Centenary Mill of Madurai for making S.S.Polyester thread of 60/2. The Polyester thread is exempted from duty vide notification No.53/87 dated 01.03.1987 and these goods alone are exported. After issuing show cause notice dated 6.9.1989 a...
Muthu Goundar, and ors. Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. The Appellant/Claimant (Since Deceased) has projected this Appeal as against the Award dated 30.04.1983 in LAOP No.27 of 1980 passed by the Learned First Additional Sub Judge, Salem.2. The Government have acquired an extent of 1.60 Acres of Dry land in S.No.90/1B1 of Munjanur Village in Thiruchencode Taluk belonging to the Appellant/Claimant (Since Deceased) for providing house sites to Devendrar's (Harijans). After complying with the necessary formalities, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for an extent of 1.60 Acres of Dry land in S.No.90/1B1 of Munjanur Village has been approved in G.O.Rt.No.1029 Social Welfare Department dated 08.11.1978. The said notification was published in the Supplement to Part-II, Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.47.A dated 06.12.1978 at page 36 as Item No.II (2)/SW/6542/78 appointing the Special Tahsildar (H.W.), Sankari to perform the function of a Collector under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The...
Geetha . Vs. the Secretary to Government Home, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2010
1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Suresh @ Dabukku Suresh. She challenges an order of the second respondent in No.507/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 07.12.2009, whereby her husband was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 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 five adverse cases namely (1) H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar PS Cr.No.95/2003 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 427 and 302 IPC r/w 149 and 34 IPC; (2) M3 Puzhal PS Cr.No.268/2007 under Sections 147, 148, 342, 324 and 506(ii) IPC; (3) B1 North Beach PS Cr.No.27/2009 under Sec.397 IPC; (4) H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar PS Cr.No.888/2009 under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and (5) H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar PS Cr.No.891/2009 under Sections 341, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and also in one ground case registered by H4 Korukkupet PS in Crime No.441/2...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »