Chennai Court February 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.
Kuppathai and anr. Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
J U D G M E N T1. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.338 of 2000 on the file of the Mahalir Court, Coimbatore and they stand convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment; convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment each and convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment and the sentence of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently. Against the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-A1 and A3 are husband and wife. Their sons are A2, A4 and their daughter is A5. The marriage of the second ...
K.Ramachandran Vs. K.Ganeshmoorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. The first defendant has filed the present First Appeal (Appeal Suit) challenging the observations made by the trial Court while dismissing the suit for partition. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the description of the properties given by the first respondent/plaintiff, was not clear as required under Order 7 Rule 3 CPC, and Civil Rules of Practice and circular orders, and the trial Court has also given an opportunity to the first respondent/plaintiff to file a fresh suit for partition with a clear description of the properties, against which, the present First Appeal has been filed by the first defendant.2. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent/plaintiff is the brother of the appellant/first defendant. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit against his brother (first defendant), mother (second defendant) and sisters (defendants 3 and 4), for partition and separate possession of his 1/5 share in the suit properties. He has given the description ...
Tasmac Transport and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
O R D E R1. W.P.24409 of 2010 was filed by the TASMAC Transport Contractor represented by its President. The other four writ petitions were filed by individual transport contractors engaged by the respondent TASMAC. The challenge in all the five writ petitions are to the circular issued by the respondent TASMAC dated 23.06.2010.2. By the impugned circular, the Chief General Manager (Finance) informed the Transport contractors, who engages the workers for loading and unloading of IMFS/Beer products and when they pay the unloading charges all statutory payments arising out of unloading charges have also to be borne by them. It was also informed that as per transport tender condition and contract executed by transport contractors the rate is inclusive of all statutory levies such as service tax, EPF etc and the primary responsibility of the transport contractor is to take care of all statutory requirements in respect of loadmen such as covering the loadmen under the Employees Provident Fu...
V.Raman @ RamIn @ Ramamoorthy Vs. Union Territory of Puducherry and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the third respondent in No.52/CC/PON/38/2007-FF(SZ) dated 03.05.2010 and consequently direct the respondents to grant Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSS) and also State Freedom Fighters Pension with interest and arrears.2.Petitioner was the freedom fighter, who fought for the liberation of Puducherry from the French during the period from 1947 to 1954. According to the petitioner, he has participated in various struggles against French imperialism, for which, he was falsely implicated in a political assassination case and was also imposed imprisonment of ten years. In September, 1997, the petitioner applied for grant of pension under the State Government Pension Scheme for freedom fighters along with all documents and certificates. According to the petitioner, the same was unjustly rejected by the State Government. The petitioner sent his application dated 02.12.2004 directly to Government of Ind...
M/S.Saravana Agencies Vs. the Assistant Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is a dealer of Petroleum and having a Bunk at Ennathur, Kancheepuram. They filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 18.11.2008 passed under Section 45-A of the ESI as well as the consequential recovery notice dated 14.05.2009.2. The writ petition was admitted on 24.07.2009. Pending the writ petition, this court granted an interim stay of recovery.3. On notice from this court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 09.10.2009.4. The only contention raised by the petitioner was before passing the order under Section 45-A of the ESI Act, the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of putting forth its defence before the authorities.5. Initially, the respondent issued a notice on 11.02.2008 and 14.10.2008 to appear for an enquiry. The petitioner sent a letter dated 14.10.2008 seeking for further time for the personal hearing. Accepting the stand of the petitioner, the matter was directed to be posted on 21.11.2008. However, ...
Muthu @ Jayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
O R D E R1. The Petitioner is the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 17.04.2010, passed by the second respondent under which, the detenu has been branded as a Goonda and detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.2. As per the grounds of detention dated 17.04.2010, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-1. Coimbatore R.S.Puram Police Station Crime No.590/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The offence said to have taken place during night hours on 07.06.2006.2. Coimbatore Kattur Police Station Crime No.2006/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The offence said to have taken place between 02.09.2006 and 04.09.2006.3. Coimbatore Kattur Police Station Crime No.1866/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 511 of IPC. The offence said to have taken place during night hours on 11.08.2006.4. Coimbatore Kattur Police Station Crime No.1895/2006, for th...
P.Ravikumar Vs. Malarvizhi @ S.Kokila
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORDER1. The appellant-husband is the petitioner herein. He filed H.M.O.P.No.37 of 2006 for divorce under section 13(1)(5) of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The case of the appellant/petitioner was that he married the respondent and a child was born to them and it was found during the test that the respondent is having AIDS and he apprehends that if he has sexual relationship with his wife, the respondent, he may also get the disease and he is not having AIDS and therefore, filed petition for divorce.3. The respondent contested the petition stating that the appellant has taken her to a doctor known to him and with the connivance of the doctor, a certificate was obtained as if she is having AIDS and even assuming that she has got the disease, she must have afflicted with the disease only through her husband as he is working as Driver going to various places.4. The Trial Court granted divorce and the first appellate court allowed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner filed the above appeal. The pe...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Selvarani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal against the grant of an award of Rs.8,09,160/-, in respect of death of a 52 years old employee in MCOP.No.284 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Vellore. 2.The accident is admitted, liability is admitted and only the quantum is questioned. Even on the quantum, the main ground of attack was that the lower court without taking into consideration that the person would retire at the age of 58 has applied the multiplier theory throughout whereas after retirement, his salary would be reduced and the pension would be only 50%. This calculation has not been done by the Court below. This is the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the appeal. 3.The learned counsel for the claimants contended that even though he may retire, that does not mean that amount is lost. Nowadays, the pension is almost 60% and he would have also earned outside after r...
State Bank of India Officer and ors. Vs. S.Balasubramanian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORDER1. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.7310 of 2010 on the file of the IV Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Chennai are the revision petitioners.2. Respondents 1 to 5 originally filed the suit on the file of this court in C.S.No.824 of 2008 for a declaration that the entire election process of the first defendant as conducted by the second defendant for the year 2008-2011 is vitiated by fraud, manipulation and irregularities and to declare the same as void and for injunction. The case of respondents 1 to 5 as seen from the plaint was that the election conducted by the first and second defendants is vitiated by various irregularities and there were large scale manipulations in sending the postal ballots and receipt of postal ballots and non-members of the association for whom ballots were sent/allowed to vote and ballots were despatched to same persons more than once. Though various other irregularities have been stated in the plaint, respondents 1 to 5 attacked the election process ...
Eternit Everest Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,coi ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The assessees herein are engaged in the manufacture of asbestos cement products falling under Chapter Heading 68.04 of the First Schedule to the CETA-85. They were paying duty on the above products which were manufactured using cement and asbestos fibre as main raw materials. They commenced manufacture of upgraded technology products wherein 25% or more of fly ash was used w.e.f. 20.1.92 and they also continued to manufacture the products without fly ash until 17.10.92, when they stopped manufacture of products made traditionally, namely without using fly ash. They filed classification lists claiming benefit of exemption from duty in terms of Notification No.60/91 for the upgraded technology products - the classification lists w.e.f. 30.12.91 and 23.9.92 were approved on 18.12.92 extending the benefit of the notification. Pricelists claiming exemption were also approved wherein duty amount was indicated as NIL, while, on the other hand, in the case of products...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »