Chennai Court September 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 Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 31.08.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.410 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, awarding a compensation of Rs.68,800/- together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2.Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3.The short facts of the case are as follows:On 20.09.2004, at about 2.30 p.m. the claimant was proceeding from his house towards Anthiyur, on his TVS50 motorcycle bearing registration No.TN36 B3662, on the Kolathukadai Koosalur road. While he was passing Kulathukadai, from east to west, on the left side of the road, he had slowly turned the vehicle in the curve of the road, turning in the direction of the ...
A.Jeevarathinammal. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1.The North Arcot District Children's Aid Society, appointed the petitioner as Warder-cum-cook by an order dated 30.06.1963 in their Reception Home at Vellore. The District Collector of Vellore was the President of the North Arcot District Children's Aid Society. The Reception Home was run based on the grant of the Tamil Nadu Government. Since the said Society became defunct and did not show any interest in the welfare of the inmates, the said Society was placed under the charge of the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Vellore with effect from 01.05.1981.2. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1922, Social Welfare Department, dated 17.09.1985 taking over the Reception Home run under the North Arcot District Children's Aid Society along with the staff, in as is where is condition with the assets. The service of the petitioner was regularised as Cook with effect from 17.09.1985. The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.1994 on reaching the age of superannuation.3. The petitioner ...
Consim Info Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Google India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
"What's in a name That which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet"1. would have been acceptable to Shakespeare, but certainly not to WIPO. Today everything is in a name, if the name had acquired significance as a trademark. William Murray, First Earl of Mansfield observed in Morgan vs. Jones, that "most of the disputes in the world arise from words". BACKGROUND OF THE LITIGATION ON HAND2. The case of the plaintiff, as reflected in the plaint, is that it is a company rendering online matrimonial services, using internet as a vehicle/platform. The plaintiff has several matrimonial web portals including 15 regional portals, catering to the needs of millions of Indians living in India and outside. Mr.Janakiraman Murugavel, promotor/ founder Director of the plaintiff adopted a host of trademarks and obtained registration thereof. The plaintiff-company also adopted a few trademarks and obtained registration thereof in its own name. By virtue of a Deed of Assignment dated 16...
M/S.New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Labour, and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.11881 of 2010, dated 29.06.2010. The writ petitioner is the appellant.2.The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 18.03.2010 and consequently to for bear the first respondent from computing or disbursing any dues including retrenchment compensation, gratuity and other statutory benefits for the period subsequent to 31.12.2004.3. Though this case has a chequered history, the short issue which falls for consideration is :-"what would be the date, which shall be reckoned for the purpose of computing the compensation payable under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the workmen of the appellant Sugar Mill".4. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal, could be precisely stated as hereunder: -The appellant availed certain credit facilities from the Indian Bank and committed default in repaymen...
P. Thiruman, and ors. Vs. the Presiding Officer, and Anr,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. The prayer in all these writ petitions are to quash the common award dated 11.10.2004 passed in I.D.Nos.887/1998, 888/1998, 889/1998, 64/1999, 65/1999, 108/2001, 110/2001 and 312/2001.2. The eight individual workmen, engaged in the second respondent management on daily wage basis, have jointly filed W.P.No.3211 of 2006 challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 11.10.2004 denying reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, whereas W.P.Nos.10711 to 10718 of 2006 are filed by the management against the respective workman so far as the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- to them.3. The issue arises for consideration in all these writ petitions being one and the same and common award is passed by the Labour Court, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.4. The case of the workmen are, the Erode District Co-Operative Milk Producers' Union (hereinafter called 'the Management') is having Dairy Plant at Chithoor and Milk Chilling Centres ...
Manickam, Vs. Munian, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2010
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of arrest passed by the Executing Court against the petitioner.2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.195 of 1981 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode against the respondents for declaration, permanent injunction and partition of the suit properties. The suit was dismissed and the Sub-Court, Sankagiri in A.S.No.71 of 1985 confirmed the Judgment and decree. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal No.1190 of 2001 before this Court and the same is pending. While so, the respondents herein filed R.E.P.No.37 of 2001 for recovery of costs, which was ordered by the trial as well as appellate Court being Rs.2,293.50/-. The petitioner filed a counter raising the plea of nonjoinder of proper and necessary parties and that action should be taken against the properties and only thereafter action could be taken personally against the petitioner. The Executing Court by ...
S.Vinayagam. Vs. Rani Ammal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. The Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant only in respect of the rate of interest awarded by the first appellate Court, after remand made by this Court in Second Appeal No.1394 of 1997, by judgment, dated 11.2.2002.2. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, who filed the suit for redemption of mortgage deed executed by him in favour of the appellant/defendant, for a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 12.6.1975, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The deceased plaintiff has worked out his remedy before various forums under the Debt Relief Acts and his applications were dismissed and therefore, he came forward with the suit for redemption of the property mortgaged under the mortgage deed.3. The appellant herein as defendant, resisted the suit, stating that the deceased plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- and executed the mortgage deed, but he has not discharged the same. Hence the appellant/defendant issued no...
N.Ramasamy Gounder. Vs. State Bank of India, Brahmana Peria Agraharam.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant on 27.09.2010 has made the following endorsement:"This Appeal has been settled between the parties. The Appellant has paid the amount as per the Compromise and the matter is settled between the Appellant and the Respondent Bank. Hence, the matter is settled out of Court, between the parties, and the Court fees may be refunded to the Appellant. This Appeal may dismissed as settled out of Court."2. In view of the said endorsement made to the effect that the Appeal has been settled between the parties and that the Appellant has paid the amount as per compromise and the matter is settled between the parties, this Court dismisses the Appeal 'as settled out of Court.'3. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant cites the decision of this Court S.JAYALAKSHMI AND 5 OTHERS V. M/S.VASAVI TRANSPORT, KULITHALAI REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR R.JAGAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER, 1994 (2) L.W.110 (DB), wherein it is laid down as follows...
S.Mohamed HaniffA. Vs. the Conservator of Forests,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. The petitioner was a Forest Guard. The District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari issued a charge sheet under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules on 26.12.1997 alleging that the petitioner failed to prevent illicit felling and removing of valuable trees from Kulasekaram South Beat. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.06.1998 denying the charges. The District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari came to the conclusion that there was a loss of Rs.93,358/- and he directed recovery of Rs.46,679/- being the 50% of the total value of the missing trees, in his order dated 15.10.1998.2. The petitioner filed an appeal on 10.12.1998 to the respondent. Thereafter, he filed an Original Application in O.A.No.88 of 1999 seeking disposal of the appeal dated 10.12.1998 made by the petitioner. The Tribunal passed an order dated 17.02.1999 directing the respondent to dispose of the appeal and to keep recovery in abeyance. Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned...
S.Govindasamy (Deceased). Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2010
1. The Original Application in O.A.No.4148 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2.The deceased petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.1993. At the time of his retirement, disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. However, he was permitted to retire from service subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the departmental action resulted in the imposition of punishment of cut in pension at the rate of Rs.300/- per month for a period of 12 months by the order dated 01.09.1997. Even thereafter, the terminal benefits were not settled and the pension and DCRG were settled only on 11.05.2000. 3.Hence, the present writ petition has been filed claiming interest at the rate of 24% on the gratuity, commutation and arrears of pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner from from 30.06.1993 to 11.05.2000 and further interest on the sum payable till date of payment. 4.Heard the submissions made on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »