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.
Meenakshi Academy of Higher Education and Research Vs. the University ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the (UGC & AICTE), 1st and 2nd respondents herein, to inspect the petitioner Institution, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, which is a department of Meenakshi Academy of Higher Education and Research, the (Deemed University) as per the petitioner's application dated 12.05.2008.3. The case of the petitioner as put forth in the affidavit would run thus :(i) The petitioner is a Deemed University by virtue of the said status having been granted by the Government of India by notification dated 31.03.2004, in consultation with the University Grants Commission under Section-3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act. The petitioner has been running a Dental College under the name of 'Meenakshi Ammal Dental College' and 'Meenakshi Medical College and Research Institute', which has been brought under the amb...
B.Muraliharan. Vs. Union of India, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1.By consent, the Writ Petitions themselves are taken up for disposal.2. While W.P.15190 of 2010 has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent's Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated Nil, issued during the month of June,2010, relating to maintenance of Residential Colony, including improvement and civil works at the airport of Chennai, to quash the same and consequently direct the second and third respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in any future tender proceedings to be conducted by them, touching the maintenance/improvement by way of civil works at the airport of Chennai, W.P.No.17402 of 2010 has been filed for a similar relief calling for the records of the third respondent's Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated Nil, issued during the month of July,2010, relating to annual maintenance contract for Kamaraj Domestic Terminal and Link Building at airport of Chennai, to quash the same and consequently direct t...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Vs. L.K.Arumugam ..
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2010
1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 17.11.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.65 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Thirupathur, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,14,832/- together with 7.5% 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/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 30.08.2003, at about 12.00 hours, the petitioner was proceeding in his TVS50 motorcycle bearing registration No.TN29 Z9855, from Aandiyappanur to Mittur, by slowly, cautiously, observing all the rules of the road with sounding horn, keeping to the extreme left side of the road. When he was nearing Aandiyappanur Manicka Gounder's Coconut Thope...
Ganesan, and anr. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. The Appellants/Claimants have filed this Appeal as against the Award dated 18.11.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Tiruvarur.2.The trial Court viz., Learned Sub Judge, Tiruvarur, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, while passing the Award in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002, dated 18.11.2005, has, among other things, 'directed the 3rd Claimant (2nd Respondent in Appeal) to receive the amount lying in Court deposit and in respect of the Appellants/Claimants 1 and 2 it dismisses the LAOP petition without costs.' 3.Before the trial Court, on the side of Claimants, witnesses C.W.1 to C.W.6 have been examined and documents Exs.C.1 to C.24 have been marked. On the side of 1st Respondent/Land Acquisition Officer, Tiruvarur, no one has been examined as a witness and no document has been marked. 4.Being aggrieved against the Award dated 18.11.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 2002 passed by the trial Court viz., Sub Judge, Tiruvarur, the Appellan...
Pushpa Vs. the Commissioner,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard Mr.Mohan Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Thangaraja, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook at the Noon Meal Centre under the Nutritious Meal Scheme in Thiagadurgam Panchayat Union on 13.09.1982. Her date of birth is 30.06.1943 as entered in the Service Register. At the time of appointment, the age of the retirement of the Cook under the Nutritious Meal Scheme was 55 years. Hence, she should have retired on 30.06.1998, on reaching the age of superannuation.3. While the petitioner was in service, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.70, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 23.04.1998 enhancing the age of the retirement of the Cook and other employees in the Nutritious Meal Scheme from 55 years to 58 years. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto 30.06.2001. But, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2000 retiring the petitioner from service and she was re...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. the Joint Commissioner of L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 13.12.2004 rejecting the approval petition filed by the petitioner management to terminate the services of the second respondent.2. The petitioner is the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-I) Ltd., Villupuram. The second respondent was employed with the petitioner Transport Corporation as Driver on daily wages basis initially from 2.5.1996 and subsequently he was absorbed on permanent basis from 1.4.1997. According to the petitioner management, the second respondent unauthorisedly absented from duty from 21.8.2002 and hence a charge memo was issued on 15.10.2002. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that the second respondent was guilty of charges. Thereafter a second show cause notice was issued on 21.7.2003 proposing the punishment of dismissal. The second respondent did not submit any explanation and considering the enquiry report, the management terminate...
MeenA. Vs. .The District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 29.4.2010, whereby the petitioner's son Arul @ Arulpandi @ Arulpandiyan @ Arunpandian 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 four adverse cases namely (1) Vadalur PS Cr.No.251/08 under Sections 294, 323 and 332 IPC; (2) Vadalur PS Cr.No.395/08 under Sections 448, 341, 324, 323 and 506(ii) IPC; (3) Vadalur PS Cr.No.68/09 under Sections 294, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and (4) Vadalur PS Cr.No.172/2010 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324 and 307 IPC and also in a ground case in Crime No.173/2010 of Vadalur PS registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 307 IPC...
R.Ezhumalai. Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Railways,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on 09.12.1978. He moved to selection grade in the rank of Head Constable on 09.12.1988 by an order dated 31.07.1992. He was further promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 14.05.1986 by the proceedings dated 21.02.1995. While so, the impugned order dated 09.02.2000 was passed by the respondent stating that his fixation in selection grade in the post of Head Constable with effect from 09.12.1988 was erroneous and it should have been from 27.06.1989. Accordingly, re-fixation and recovery was ordered.2. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.4979 of 2000 (W.P.No.45340 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid order dated 09.02.2000 of the respondent.3. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, while admitting the Original Application, granted interim stay.4. Heard Mr.Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Viswanathan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.5. The learn...
MuniyammA. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 3.5.2010, whereby the petitioner's brother Chitrarasu 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 two adverse cases namely (1) H1 Washermenpet PS Cr.No.216/2010 under Sections 341, 384 and 506(2) IPC and (2) H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar PS Cr.No.309/2010 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 506(2) IPC and also in a ground case in Crime No.310/2010 of H6 Dr.R.K.Nagar PS registered under Sections 341, 353, 336, 427, 307 and 506(2) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 28.4.2010, and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, the detaining authority on scrutiny of ...
Cc, Chennai Vs. Rev It Systems Pvt. Ltd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2010
1. Heard both sides. The respondents have filed a cross appeal along with the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay in filing the cross appeal. As the Ld. DR has no objection to condone the delay in filing cross appeal, the delay is condoned and the miscellaneous application is allowed. 2. Both sides are aggrieved by the impugned order. The department is aggrieved by the reduction in fine and penalty amounts. The respondent is aggrieved that the impugned order has been passed without hearing them. It is the case of the Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents that if the matter is remanded back to the lower appellate authority, they would be able to put forth their case on merit before him since they have a good case on merit, since they have not violated any import licensing provisions. Ld. DR has no objection to grant of a remand as the department is also aggrieved by the impugned order. Hence with the consent of both sides, the impugned order is set aside and the mat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »