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.
S.Ramkumar Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
O R D E R1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.3398 of 2010 in C.C.No.24 of 2009 and to set aside the order passed by the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.3398 of 2010 in C.C.No.24 of 2009 dated 11.01.2011 and to permit him to summon, at least the Inspector of Police, CBI/Mr.K.A.A.Salam to give evidence apart from marking the file seized from his office premises.2. The petitioner is the sixth accused in the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2009. The respondent has laid charge-sheet for the various offences and the case is of the year 1999. When the entire evidence is over and the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.3398/2010 with specific plea u/s.311 of Cr.P.C., to re-open the case and pass orders for summoning the witnesses to speak about the d...
Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary School Vs. Special Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary School Headmasters Association, represented by its Legal Secretary V.P.Somasundaram. They filed O.A.No.7722 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order dated 15.12.1999 passed by the second respondent, Director of School Education as well as the order dated 14.03.2000 passed by the first respondent State and after declaring the same as null and void seeks for a direction to the second respondent to grant Personal Pay of Rs.600/- with effect from 01.09.1998.2. The petitioner claimed that their association is recognised by the State Government by G.O.No.145/99. The list of members of the said association numbering 150 is set out in the Annexure to the OA filed before the Tribunal.3. The Tribunal admitted the Original Application on 23.10.2000 and granted interim stay for a period of two weeks. Subsequently, on 09.11.2000, the interim stay was extended without specifying any outer time ...
Vijaynataraj and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ORDER1. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. This petition is filed seeking for a direction to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Cr.No. 94 of 2009 taken on file by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore City on 7.11.2009 on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant for the alleged offences under Secs.120-B and 420 IPC, and to quash the same.2. For better appreciation, the factual backdrop involved is briefly outlined herein:The 2nd petitioner is the son of the petitioners 1 and 3, who are said to be the owners of the property in S.Nos.26/2B and 26/2C. The allegation is that by representing to the defacto-complainant that they would sell to him 33 cents of property for a sum of Rs.95,09,459/-, the petitioners made him to believe that there was no encumbrance in the property and believing such representation, the defacto-complainant purchased the same for a valid consideration under registered sale deeds in the yea...
M. Joy Varghese and ors. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ORDER1. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. The petition is filed seeking a direction to set aside the order in R.C.No.8/2009 dated 27.4.2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore confirming the order dated 20.9.2008 in C.M.P.No.1814/2008 in C.C.No.27/2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi.2. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi on a complaint given by the 2nd respondent for alleged offence under Secs.406 and 420 IPC. The District Crime Branch, Coimbatore has registered the case in Cr.No.57 of 2007 and after investigation, they have filed charge sheet.3. The sum and substance of the charge sheet is as follows:The 1st petitioner was the Managing Director of one Premier Footwear Products Pvt Ltd and was having a factory at Pollachi. The 2nd petitioner is the son-in-law of the 1st petitioner, 3rd petitioner is the Manager and the other petitioners are...
Vahca Krishnamurthy and ors. Vs. A. Palanisami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
COMMON ORDER1. Byconsent, the matteris taken up for final hearing. Crl.O.P.No.6613 of 2010 is filed to call for records in C.C.No.63/2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore based on a private complaint filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.30912 of 2008 for various offences and quash the same.2. The petition in Crl.O.P.NO.30912 of 2008 is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent, based upon the complaint given by the petitioner dated 24.11.2008, to register a case against the respondents 3 to 6 for abducting the petitioner and also to direct the 1st respondent to recover all four cheques of the Catholic Syrian Bank, Singanullur Branch of KRA Textile bearing Nos.799792 dated 25.11.2008, 799793 dated 25.12.2008, 799794 dated 25.12.2008 and 799795 dated 25.1.2009 from the respondents 3 to 6 which were extracted from the petitioner illegally under coercion and threat. (amended as per the order of this Court dated 3.3.2010 in MP No.1 of 2010).3. Since th...
N.Srinivasan Vs. N.Rangarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 22.7.2010 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District, reversing the judgement and decree dated 31.8.2007 passed by the District Munsif, Sholinghur, in OS.No.6 of 2006, which was filed for permanent injunction.2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3. The merits relating to the factual matrix lie within a narrow campus, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:(a) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for bare injunction relating to an immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint.(b) The respondents/defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement.(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff on his side examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On the defendants' side, the first defendant exami...
Sree Karthikeya Industries Workers Union Vs. Commerical Tax Officer an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
O R D E R1. These writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 04.01.2011.2. The petitioner is the same Trade Union in both the writ petitions. The first writ petition (W.P.No.37702/2007) was filed in the year 2007. The petitioner sought for a direction to the first respondent Commercial Tax Officer, Ranipet to pay a sum of Rs.28,02,433.18 towards the closure compensation bonus, leave salary and gratuity from out of the sale proceeds, pursuant to the auction sale fixed by the first respondent on 26.12.2007 in as much as he has brought both the movable and immovable properties belonging to the second respondent company situated at Plot Nos.87 and 132, SIDCO Industrial State, SIPCOT, Ranipet.3. The said writ petition was admitted on 20.12.2007. Pending further orders, this Court directed the first respondent Commercial Tax Officer to set apart amounts allegedly due to the workers represented by the petitioner Union. When the ma...
Air Vice Marshal V.Krishnaswamy Vsm and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Co-o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 2.At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impleaded respondents, namely, respondents 4 to 6 are also the members of the third respondent Society and that they are also eligible to participate in the elections to be conducted in respect of the Defence Officers Colony Institute. 3.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the third respondent should not conduct elections without cancelling the membership of all the members, who had been enrolled after 12.06.2001, by the Special officer of the third respondent Society, as per Section 89(A) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court, inK.Nithiyanantham v. Stat...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Ancient Pharma
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
Per Jyoti Balasundaram 1. The brief facts of the case are that the assessees herein, who are engaged in the manufacture of medicines falling under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3003.39, sold their goods to distributors M/s.Savitha Enterprises, Quilon for sale in Kerala and M/s.Suresh Pharma, Madurai for sale in other states, since 1992. M/s.Suresh Pharma is owned by Suresh who is the son of the proprietrix of the respondent. The percentage of sale of goods to independent distributors M/s.Savitha Enterprises is only 3 to 7%. The department was of the view that the assessees had undervalued its goods so as to evade payment of duty and hence show cause notice dt. 28.11.01 was issued demanding differential duty of Rs.5,58,737/- together with interest and proposing penal action, by treating the sale value of M/s.Suresh Pharma as the transaction value in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisabl...
M/S. Marvel Engg. Industries Vs. Cce, Coimbatore
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
Per: Dr. Chittarajan Satapathy, 1. Heard both sides. 2. Initially on 04.11.09 with the consent of both sides, all the four appeals were remanded with the direction to decide the cases afresh after taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of W.P.I.L. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut - 2005 (181)ELT 359 (SC). Subsequently, the department filed an application for rectification of mistake, on the ground that no finding was recorded by the Tribunal on the question of the refund claims being hit by time bar, which was a relevant issue in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The ROM application was allowed on 22.02.10, in terms of which the appeals are now taken up for a fresh decision. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that appeal Nos. E/539 and 540/03 are related to the orders passed by the authorities below rejecting the refunds, on the ground of time bar. He also states that he has no objection if these two appeals are reje...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »