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.
No.648696-l Jwo Chandrashekhar Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Its Secreta ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. The JWO in the Indian Air Force has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order viz MC/5514/4/P3 dated 7th July 2010 emanated from the 5th respondent. 2. The short facts as narrated in the affidavit to the application are as follows:- The applicant was recruited as Air Warrior and got enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 28th February 1978. He was sent on temporary duty from 28 Equipment Depot to NAD Cochin on April 1991 and returned on 6th May 1991. Again on 9th May 1991 after a gap of three days, he was sent on temporary duty from 28 Equipment Depot to NAD Cochin on rail escort duty which is against AFO/25/81 now AFO 131/98, which specifies that The Number of escorts to be detailed would be governed as follows:- a) For the first four vehicles or for the first four closed / open wagons 4 men. b) For every subsequent four vehicles or four closed / open wagons or part thereof, 1 additional man. However only 3 personnel in...
R.Balaji Vs. V.Vijayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
O R D E R1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 2008 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Ambur, aggrieved over the order dated 10.8.2010 passed by the said Court in allowing the application in I.A.No.65 of 2010 preferred by the respondents to amend the written statement, has come up with the present civil revision petition.2. The respondents being defendants in the said suit, have filed an application in I.A.No.65 of 2010 for amendment of the written statement. The amendment that has been sought for by the respondents is only in respect of the boundaries set out in the written statement. The Court below found that the said amendment will not change the cause of action or the nature of the suit property and that it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and allowed the said application. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present civil revision petition.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that in a mechanical way, the r...
K.Vajaravel Vs. Ansul Mishra, I.A.S and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is a partner of a registered firm under the name and style of "Surabhi Nursery" dealing with the Lanscape, designing, Maintenance of Parks and Gardens, Hybird Horticultural Plants and Seeds. The firm has its agricultural farm at Palliyuthu near Erode and branch at No.596, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 14.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2010, vide which the bid of the petitioner for Annual Maintenance of Parks ROC No.6120/2010/MD was rejected during technical evaluation, by the duly constituted committee, by holding that the petitioner was not technically qualified as per the qualification criteria. However, no decision was conveyed regarding the bid of the petitioner relating to the item No.3 of e-52/2010 and the works relating to other three zones.3. The reason for the rejection of the petitioner was that the firm was not registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner therefore challenged the impugned order by referring to the eligibi...
K.Mala Vs. S.Vasu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T1. The plaintiff and the first defendant in O.A.No.1280 of 2008 are sister and brother. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The suit property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The father died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and the first defendant as the legal heirs claiming one half share in the suit property. The plaintiff has filed the Suit in C.S.No.1145 of 2008 before this Court, seeking the following relief:"(a)for partition of the schedule mentioned property into 2 equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to the value thereof and allot one such share to the plaintiff herein; (b)for consequential declaration to declare that the Settlement deed dated 12.11.2003 registered as Document No.3061 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Registrar of Mylapore, executed by the 1st defendant to and in favour of the 2nd defendant as null and void and not binding on this plaintiff; (c)appointing an...
N.C.Alexander Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Customs Custom House Narma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner is a trading in fruits by importing them from various countries, including the United States of America. He also does business in local sales in fruits. He has been importing apples from the United States of America for the past seven years, on the basis of the contracts entered into with the suppliers. Almost all the imports of the apples had been made through Chennai Seaport in specially refrigerated containers, as the goods are highly perishable in nature. The goods had been duly assessed and cleared by the customs and the port authorities, on payment of the appropriate duty. For the purpose of carrying on the business, by importing fruits, the petitioner has been allotted the Importer Exporter Code No.0403001013, by the office of the Zonal JDGFT, Chennai.2. It has been further stated that the petitioner is also assessed to income tax. The import of apples, especially, from the United States of America, has been on the basis of the contract entered into wi...
V.N.S.High School Vs. State of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner-V.N.S. High School, Ramnad, is a minority Educational Institution started in the year 1924 and it is governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act. In the beginning, the School was started with Standards I to V as Elementary School and it was granted recognition by the authorities and for the teachers appointed, staff grant was also released. In the year 1981, the petitioner-School was upgraded as Middle School with Standards VI to VIII and due recognition was granted for the up-gradation to Middle School Status. As no High School with Standards-IX and X was available in the vicinity within 15 kms., the community people approached the petitioner-School Management to start classes for Standards-IX and X to meet the needs of their children. Consequently, for the academic year 2005-06, the petitioner-School started IX standard classes with the strength of 40 students including 20 girl students and simultaneously, an Application, dated 31.0...
Govindarajalu Naidu Vs. Vaduganathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
C O M M O N O R D E R1. These Revisions have been filed under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). As these revisions relate to the same property and between the same parties, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in both the revisions is the tenant and the respondents are the landlord. The facts of the case lies in a narrow campus. One Mr.Vaduganathan Chettiar was the owner of the petition premises under whom the petitioner was inducted as the tenant during September 1987, in respect of a non-residential premises, the tenancy was a oral tenancy, according to English calendar month. The rent payable was Rs.750/- and the petitioner had paid an advance of Rs.8,000/-. The said Mr.Vaduganathan Chettiyar filed RCOP.No.37 of 1999, against the petitioner herein stating that after October 1998, the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent and such default was willful. As the said Mr.Va...
Karthik Vs. Minor K.Keerthana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
O R D E R1. The present civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal Judge of Family Court at Chennai dated 27.8.2010 made in I.A.S.R.No.5290 of 2010 in O.P.No.383 of 2007.2. The petitioner herein has filed O.P.No.383 of 2007 against his wife for dissolution of the marriage. In the said proceedings, his minor daughter K.Keerthana, through her mother Narayanee alias Krithika, has filed an application in I.A.No.3091 of 2009 for interim maintenance. By an order dated 10.2.2010, the learned Principal Judge of Family Court, Chennai, directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of petition till the disposal of the said O.P. The petitioner, challenging the said order, has filed a civil revision petition before this Court in C.R.P (PD) No.675 of 2010. The said revision came to be dismissed by this Court, by an order dated 7.4.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.S.R.No.5290 of...
Thangeswari and ors. Vs. Thirumalvalavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. The appellants herein are the obstructors, who filed the suit in O.S.No.506 of 1992.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are as follows:-i) The respondents 1 to 5 herein filed the suit in O.S.No.520 of 1981, against the respondents 6 to 9, for specific performance of an agreement of sale, executed by one Kathirvel Padayachi, whose legal representatives are the respondents 6 to 9 in this Second Appeal. The suit was decreed on 10.02.1982. Thereafter, an application in I.A.No.6602 of 1993, was filed by the respondents 6 to 9 to set aside the decree and that was ultimately dismissed on 22.01.2001. ii) Thereafter, a suit in O.S.No.506 of 1992, was filed by the appellants and another seeking the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and for injunction, restraining the defendants thereunder. The respondents 1 to 7, herein were the defendants in O.S.No.506 of 1992 and in that suit, the appellants filed I.A.No.428 of 1992, seek...
M/S. Automotive Ancillary Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. Heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. 2. The applicant is a manufacturer of parts of Motor Vehicles on job work basis and the dispute relates to reverse credit being taken suo motto by the applicant on the basis of a debit note received from the principal manufacturer on the ground that the said document is not the prescribed document. Prima facie, duty paid nature of the inputs on which credit taken, its receipt and use are not in dispute. The stand of the department is that the applicant should have preferred a refund claim and then only the Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner should have allowed the credit. Prima facie, it is a case of technical violation and does not warrant predeposit of the amount of duty involved. 3. In view of the above, predeposit of dues as per the impugned order is waived and recovery there of stayed till the disposal of the appeal....
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »