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.
S. Gowri Proprietrix M/S. Kavitha Enterprises. Vs. the Lakshmi Vilas B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to decide the interim application in I.A.Sr. No. 1496 of 2010 in O.A. No. 89 of 2007 on merits and thereafter decide the main O.A. No. 89 of 2007 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai.2. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent/bank has filed O.A. No. 100 of 2007 (Old OA No. 206 of 1997) before the third respondent/ Tribunal against the petitioner herein for recovery of Rs.2,01,96,887.59 together with contractual interest at the rate of 22.5% from the date of filing the Original Application. In the meantime, the first respondent bank assigned its assests vide an assignment agreement dated 25.01.2007 to the second respondent. Earlier, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 667 of 2005 in O.A. No. 100 of 2007 (Old O.A. No. 206 of 1997) to send for certain documents from the bank. After hearing both sides, the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III dismisse...
JerinA. Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 25.3.2010, whereby the petitioner's son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda as described under the provisions of the Act. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available and 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 one adverse case registered by S-8 Adambakkam PS in Crime No.109/2010 under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 of IPC and also in a ground case in Crime No.141/2010 registered by S-8 Adambakkam PS under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427 and 302 IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 28.2.2010, and he surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, on 1.3.2010, and was remanded to judicial custody, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materials placed, made the order...
Jayasakthi Catering Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
1. Demand of service tax of Rs.3,53,592/- and education cess of Rs.7072/- confirmed against the assessees herein on the ground that they had rendered “outdoor catering services” during the period 10.9.04 to 31.12.05, and penalty of Rs.3,61,764/- is challenged in the above appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The appellant, a proprietary concern of Shri S.Balasubramaniyam, was an established hotel providing “indoor catering service”, which was subsequently expanded to provide “outdoor catering service”. The proprietor has stated that he is engaged in rendering “outdoor catering service” to corporate customers such as M/s.HCL Infosystems Ltd. M/s.Cooper Bussmann India (P) Ltd., M/s.LandT Ltd. and others. 3. Shri P.B.Jerald, Asst. Manager of M/s. HCL Infosystems, Pondicherry has deposed that they had engaged the appellant to serve food and snacks prepared by them (the appellants) in their premises; that the appellant raised bills once in a ...
K. Jayaraman Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. In all the above five appeals, Registry had issued notices for removal of defects. In spite of several such notices, the defects continue. None appears for the appellant also in spite of notice. Hence these appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution along with the stay applications....
The Senior Branch Manager and Another Vs. P. Kannan Marimuthu, B.Com., ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2010
(The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/ opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the compensation ordered by the District Forum dt.10.8.2007 in CC No.51/2006.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The facts leading to the appeal: The complainant having taken Asha Deep policy, from the opposite party, had underwent a double valve replacement surgery on 16.3.2006, for which he was charged at Rs.2,04,743/-. Under the policy, the maximum amount assured was Rs.3 lakhs, in which the complainant is entitled to be reimbursed 50% viz. Rs.150000/-, for which a claim was made, repudiated, as if under Article 11(b), the complainant is not entitled to any expenses incurred, improperly, not properly reading the article, w...
The Post Master and Another Vs. a/M. Alkondammal Koil
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2010
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants / opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the invested amount with subsequent interest to pay cost. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.25.4.2007 in O.P.No.167/2006.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent/ complainant, invested with the 1st opposite party, under 5 years Kisan Vikas Patras (hereinafter will be mentioned as KVP) scheme, totaling a sum of Rs.25000/- on maturity payable Rs.50000/- on three dates, for Rs.10000/-, Rs.10000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively. The opposite party, in someother case, informed that the investment under KVP scheme, by institution, is irregular and interest could not be paid, for such investment. When the complainant, approached the opposite party, for...
S.Kamatchi, and ors.Vs. G.Saraswathy, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. The Second Appeal is filed by the defendants 3 to 9 who are the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant, against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.2001 in A.S.No.45 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2001 in O.S.No.1001 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:(a) The plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing Door No.5 with its backyard in Sarathattai Street in T.S.No.480/1B in Ward No.6 at Koranad, Mayiladuthurai Town. The deceased first defendant is the owner of the house bearing Door Nos.5-A and 4 respectively on the west and east of the plaintiff's house. The deceased first defendant's house and backyard bearing Door No.4 are situated in T.S.Nos.477, 478 and 479 and the other house and backyard bearing Door No.5-A are situated in T.S.No.480/1.A. The plaintiff's house and backyard is shown as ABCD in the p...
P.Krishna Kumari .. Vs. A.Kandasamy ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of her application filed in I.A.No.1477 of 2008 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and declining to set aside the exparte order of divorce granted in F.C.O.P.No.2103 of 2004, Appellant-wife has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Marriage between the Appellant and Respondent was solemnized on 09.12.2002 at Tiruchendur according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, Appellant and Respondent lived in Flat No.A-2, 2nd Floor, Southern Apartment, M.G.R.Salai, Saligramam, Chennai-93. According to Appellant, her father bought furniture, colour TV and household articles for the new Flat and had also given money for setting up residence. Spouses shifted their residence to Door No.132 & 133, A V M Avenue, 5th street, Virugambakkam, Chennai. Appellant has averred that after they shifted the residence to Virugambakkam, Respondent was very cruel to her and that he wanted to marry another lady. After writing to her father in Tiruchendur on 30.08.2004 Appel...
The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Special ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. The common question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the learned single Judge is correct in directing the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank to pay 20% of last drawn salary as pension to its retired employees.2.The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:(a) The Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Limited (shortly "the Bank") is a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The District Central Co-operative Banks are its Members. The Government of Tamil Nadu also owns substantial shares. There are no private individual members in the Co-operative Society. The Bank has been running profitably.(b) While so, a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short "the Act") was entered into between the Bank and the Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Union (shortly "the Union") on 29.05.1991. Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme (in short "the Scheme") was in...
Aloys Wobben Argestrasse.Vs. Enercon (India) Limited, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, (hereinafter referred to "as the Tribunal") the second respondent herein, in various miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioner in the Original Revocation Applications pending before the Tribunal. 2. The matter arises under the Patents Act. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be briefly set out as hereunder:-The first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to "as the Company") had filed 18 Original Revocation Applications before the Tribunal for revocation of the patent granted in favour of the writ petitioner under Section 64 of the Patents Act. In the said original revocation application, the writ petitioner filed the miscellaneous petitions for dismissal of the original petitions. The case of the writ petitioner was that he is the owner of the various Patents, pursuant to the grant of Patent by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »