Chennai Court January 2011 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.
N.Elangovan Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
O R D E R1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from granting approval for forming layouts and building planning permission in the agricultural lands comprised in Survey No.532/2 E24, 532/2 E25 and 532/2 E20 at Myvadi Village, Udumalpet, Tirupur District without considering the objection of the petitioner.2. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. In view of the order that is to be passed in this writ petition, the notice to respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.3. Petitioner is running a business of stone crushing and dealing in blue metals in Survey No.533/1, Myvadi Village, Madathukulam Taluk, Udumalpet. He also states that he has obtained consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for air and water and it has been renewed periodically. Respondents 6 and 7 are trying to develop their ...
The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Vs. R.Manimuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
J U D G M E N T1. The Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, challenging the order of the learned single Judge by which the order impugned passed by the appellant dated 10.12.1998 was set aside and a consequential direction was issued to the appellant to implement the grouped schemes as per the award and to promote the respondent No.1 as Assistant Superintendent with effect from 18.11.1997 with all consequential benefits. 2.The respondent No.1 joined the duty as Lower Division Clerk with the appellant on 22.05.1979. Thereafter, he was posted in the Electrical and Mechanical Department on 25.02.1980. He was further promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 20.12.1987 in the year 1989. Thereafter, by the order dated 01.02.1997, he was further promoted as a Senior Assistant. Thereafter, by a subsequent order dated 09.04.1997, the appellant regularised the services of the respondent No.1 as Senior Assistant retrospectively with effect from 18.11.1992. 3.Earlier, in view of th...
J.Murugesan Vs. the Secretary to Government and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of Memorial Petition, submitted by the petitioner under Regulation 25 of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1972.2. The case of the petitioner is that order of punishment awarded to the petitioner, was challenged by him by filing statutory appeal, which was also rejected. Thereafter, by invoking provisions of Regulations 25, the petitioner submitted a Memorial, terming it as Mercy Petition before the Board Even though over more than five years have elapsed, no decision has been taken thereon, till date.3. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the memorial was barred by limitation and even otherwise, the memorial was filed in the form of Mercy Petition, therefore, the matter could not be put before the Board.4. The stand of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. When there is a regulation,...
M.R.Sukumaran Vs. the Principal Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against the orders of the respondent dated 26.8.2008, by which charges were leveled against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, an order of suspension was passed and the petitioner was retained in service, and for a consequential direction to regularise the period of suspension of the petitioner between 20.9.1999 to 15.7.2003 and 29.8.2008 to 31.8.2008 as duty period. 2.1. The writ petitioner, working as a Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai, was stated to have been implicated in a corruption case by one M.Jayabalan, then Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Kancheepuram on 20.9.1999 due to previous enmity. The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 20.9.1999 by the then Special Commissioner based on a report of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. 2.2. In the year 2002, the petitioner was reinstated into service by the Tamil Nadu Administrativ...
R.Mohan Singh Vs. Hajjani Noorjehan Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 10.12.2009 passed in A.S.No.74 of 2009 by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court V) Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.833 of 2007. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus: (a) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:"(a) Directing the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of Sho Old No.303B, New No.122, Qaide Millath Road also known as Triplicane High Road, Chennai 600 005 on a date to be fixed by this Court. (b) Directing the defendant to pay arrears of rent for October 2006 amounting to Rs.500/-(c) Directing the defendant to pay damages for use and occup...
C.Manikandan and anr. Vs. the Director of School Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
C O M M O N O R D E R1. As the facts relating to both petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.2.The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking a common direction for issuance of declaration, declaring the action of the third respondent in issuing the transfer certificates dated 20.10.2010 to the petitioners and discontinuing their studies during the middle of the academic year while pursuing 11th standard as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to rejoin the petitioners in the third respondent's school to continue their education and complete the course.3.When the matter was taken up, both the learned counsel appearing for both sides submitted that both the students have been taken back in the third respondent's school, in view of the earlier order dated 01.11.2010, passed by this Court, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue their studies in the third respondent school.4.Howev...
S.Sankara Kumarasamy Pandian Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is working as an Assistant in the Taluk Office at Sangagiri, Salem District. He filed O.A.No.7415 of 2000 challenging the approved list of Deputy Tahsildars prepared for the year 1998 issued by the 1st respondent District Collector, Salem dated 8.7.1999. The panel comprised of 16 Assistants who are likely to be promoted as Deputy Tahsildar.2. In the Original Application, Notice of Motion was ordered on 11.10.2000. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.40861 of 2006. In the Original Application, the petitioner has impleaded the respondents 3 to 6 as alleged juniors, whose names were included in the panel. But, neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court, any efforts were taken to serve those contesting respondents.3. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that the contesting respondents have not been served till date. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in S...
Shanmugam Vs. Hema
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 29.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in A.S.No.2 of 2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Sirkali in O.S.No.245 of 2002.2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. Heard both sides.4. The facts giving rise to the filing of this second appeal would run thus:a) The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.245 of 2002 seeking the relief of eviction and for assessment of damages for use and occupation of the premises by the defendant. b) Written statement was filed by the defendant resisting the suit.c) Whereupon issues were framed. On the side of the plaintiff, the husband of the plaintiff- one Ravichandran examined himself as P.W 1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. The defendant/Shanmugam examined himself a...
M/S. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. Cce, Madurai Vs. Cce, Madurai M/S. Sitalak ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
Heard both sides. 2. The brief facts of the case as recorded in Appeal No. E/485/2010 are as follows:- “2. During the course of audit of accounts of the assessee by the Internal Audit Party attached to this department, it was noticed that the assessee had collected an amount of Rs. 1,01,74,796/- from Ekadantha Synthetics, Bhiwandi towards additional conversion charges for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.12.2005 through debit notes Nos.19A to 140A. As per Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Assessable Value) Rules, 2000, the assessee had to pay duty on the additional conversion charges collected from Ekadantha Synthetics, Bhiwandi as the amount collected over and above the value shown in the Central Excise invoices raised for clearance of the goods is includible in the transaction value as additional consideration of sale of the goods. When it was pointed out by the Audit Party, the assessee paid duty amount of Rs.8,13,984/- and Education Cess of Rs.16,280/- in...
Cce, Madurai Vs. M/S. Fenner Conveyor Beltings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-2011
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. This is an appeal involving an amount which is below the limit stipulated in Board’s Instruction No. F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 20.10.2010, directing the department not to file appeal to the Tribunal for smaller amounts. As such, this appeal is dismissed considering the small amount involved without going into the merits of the case....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »