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.
J.Joshuva Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
ORDER1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent dated 30.5.2002, by which the respondent has issued a show cause notice proposing to impose seigniorage charges, apart from penalty, to the tune of Rs.14,38,800/-, on the basis that the petitioner has quarried stones in the place other than the place where lease was granted.2.1. The petitioner was granted renewal of lease to quarry stones (Kundukkal and Jelly) by proceedings of the Collector dated 18.5.1994 in the poromboke land bearing S.F.No.315, in an extent of 2 Acres in Madathupatti Village, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District for a period of five years from 1.7.1994 to 30.6.1999. The lease deed was executed on 11.7.1994 and the lease period expired on 30.6.1999 and thereafter, the lease has been given to third parties.2.2. It is stated that after three years, the respondent has issued the impugned show cause notice on the ground that on a field inspection it was found that the petitioner has quarried 4...
S.ilangovan Vs. the Secretary to the Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if this Court is pleased to permit the petitioner to make a representation to the second respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the present writ petition, and on such representation being made, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.5. In view of the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the...
U.A.E. Exchange and Financial Services Ltd. and Another Vs. V. Mohanak ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Nagapattinam alleging deficiency against the opposite parties and praying to refund Air Fair Rs.50,000/- with interest jointly or severally from the date of complaint, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (each Rs.50,000/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment) and cost of the complaint. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam, dt.27.03.2008 in C.C.No.35/2007. After hearing the arguments of appellant side, finally on 24.1.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. Appellants 1 and 2 are the opposite parties 1 and 2 before the District Forum. 2. The Respondents 1 to 4 filed a complaint against the appellants 1 and 2 and also against subsequently impleaded 5th respondent for the claim of return Air Fare for Rs.50,000/- and for Rs.2...
V. Pitchaiah Sastry (Ex.No.220253-t) Vs. the Government of India, Rep ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Sqn Ldr N.Kalra, Legal Officer, Air Force, Tambaram, appearing for the respondents. 2. At the midst of the argument of the petitioner, the Sqn Ldr N.Kalra, Legal Officer, Air Force, Tambaram, has produced a copy of the orders emanated from the Office of the Dy CDA (Air Force), New Delhi, Corrigendum PPO No.08/14/B/866/02, dated 25th October 2002 and Corrigendum PPO No.08/14/B/2125/2001 dated 9th November 2001 and would state that the disability pension in the case of the petitioner has been ordered to be continued from 25.06.2002 till life. It is an unfortunate case, in which as per AFMSF-16, the petitioners disease Sensory Neural Hearing Loss (BIL)-388 was opined by the Medical Board as attributable to service and also connected with service and the percentage of the disease was assessed medically as 20% for two years. The Re-survey Medical Board conducted on 2...
Shri.Nadeem Gubitra Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 27.12.2010, directing the petitioner to furnish a bond for Rs.1 crore and a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.65,00,000/-, in favour of the first respondent, for the provisional release of the vehicle in question.2. The petitioner has stated that he had purchased the Maserati Car, bearing Registration No.MP-09-CD-9399, by way of a sale letter, dated 16.7.2010, from one Imtiaz N.Khatri. He had also submitted that he had paid the differential duty amount of Rs.52,02,233/-, demanded by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad.3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, it is only the original importer of the vehicle, who would be liable to pay the differential duty, if any. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to demand the payment of differential duty from the petitioner.4. In the c...
S.M. Omar and ors. Vs. Zackaria Thomas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
COMMON 1. Appellants in these appeals are the complainants before the learned XVII M.M., Saidapet, Chennai who preferred private complaints under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and all the appeals are preferred against the judgment of the learned XVII M.M., Saidapet, Chennai.2. Since all these matters have arisen under similar circumstances involving similar questions of fact and law, they all have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. C.A.No.321/2007The brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellant filed a complaint stating that the respondent herein issued a cheque dated 9.4.2001 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the rent payable for the month of October 2010 and also issued a cheque dated 21.10.2003 for a sum of Rs10,50,000/- towards the rent for the period 1.11.2000- 28.2.2003 in his favour. According to the appellant, both the cheques were presented for payment through his banker viz., Indian Bank, T.Nagar, Chennai, on 31.10.2003 ...
Mrs.Nagalakshmi Vs. Kadar Basha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
ORDER1. The petition is filed seeking a direction to withdraw and transfer C.C.No.400/2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai to any Courts of competent jurisdiction in the City of Madras.2. The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.400 of 2009, which is a private complaint filed by the respondent under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act). According to the respondent, the petitioner came to his native place Poolangal Village in Aruppukottai at Virudhunagar on 25.10.2008 and obtained a loan of Rs.6,50,000/- and promised to repay the same with interest, but failed. According to the respondent, the petitioner issued two cheques, drawn on State Bank of India, Anna Nagar West on 4.7.2009 and the same was deposited by the respondent on 16.7.2009 and on 19.8.2009 at his bank at Poolangal, which is Indian Bank, but the same was returned with an endorsement "No sufficient fund", on 23.7.2009 and on 25.8.2009 by the payee bank. Thereafte...
David Livingston Vs. David Viswanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
O R D E R1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal dated 18.12.2008 made in I.A.No.604 of 2008 in O.S.No.419 of 1992.2. The following are the allegations contained in the affidavit filed by the 5th defendant:-2(a). The suit has been filed by the respondents against this petitioner and other defendants for framing a scheme and the same is pending. The petitioner is present secretary of the first defendant society. It was registered on 23.9.1967 under the Societies Registration Act 21 of 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") under Registration No.127/67. Presently, the society is running as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the same is supervised by the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal District. 2(b). In the plaint, it is alleged that the office bearers of the Trust resigned on 19.7.1988 and from 16.10...
V.Sathya Narayana, S/O V.Guruswamy and anr. Vs. Menaka @ Dillibai, W/O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
1. Appeal Suit (First Appeal) is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006 in O.S.No.238 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:(a) The suit house property belongs to one V.Arumugha Naicker, who purchased the same under the Registered Sale Deed, dated 7.5.1954. He enjoyed the entire property measuring 3 grounds and 293-1/2 Sq.Ft. along with the constructed house. He died intestate leaving behind D1-Menaka @ Dillibai, as his only surviving daughter to inherit the suit property. D1 enjoyed the entire property as a single unit and is in exclusive possession of the property till date. (b) On 21.1.2004, the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with D1 and D2, the husband of D1, in respect of the vacant house site measuring 1200 Sq.Ft. out of the suit property for Rs.9,60,000/- and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid as advance by the plaintiff in favour of D1 and D2, by Demand Draft, dated 21.1.2004. Th...
The Secretary and ors. Vs. J.Thamizhisai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2011
J U D G M E N T1. This appeal by the appellant-Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th January, 2010 passed in W.P.No.25382 of 2008 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-first respondent, and set aside the order by which her provisional selection to the post of Village Administrative Officer was cancelled.2. The facts of the case lie in narrow compass:-In the year 2006, an advertisement was issued calling applications for selection and appointment to the post of Village Administrative Officer. The first respondent-writ petitioner applied for the said post, and submitted her application together with other documents. The application so filed by the writ petitioner was entertained and processed, and she was allowed to appear for the written examination. After she was provisionally selected, she was directed to appear for certificate verification. However, while verifying the orig...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »