Chennai Court March 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.
The Secretary, Mda Hsg 108, Srivilliputhur Vs. P.Sundaram and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Srivilliputhur, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay the rest of the loan amount of Rs.33,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony and hardship caused by the opposite parties action and cost of the complaint. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1st opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Srivilliputhur, dated 11.10.2007 in CC.No.107/2003. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.02.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on bothsides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant/1st respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum a...
M. Mohammad Aorif (Ex : 682437 G) Vs. Union of India, Rep by Its Secre ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2011
(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. After a vehement argument, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after coming to know that even if Regulation 123 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force 1961 is challenged the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, has come forward to withdraw this petition. Endorsement made to that effect on the petition. 2.Undersuch circumstances, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, but without cost....
Mrs.K.Rajeswari and ors. Vs. M.V.Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The Appeal Suit (First Appeal) is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2006 in O.S.No.36 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.2), Salem.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows:(a) The suit properties originally belongs to one Kuppusamy Chettiar. He executed a Will dated 12.5.1969 and he died in 1975. As per the Will, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the properties in their own right. The defendants 2 and 4 are the brothers and are jointly doing silver ornament manufacturing business. (b) The defendants divided the suit properties into four portions and leased out the same on usufructuary mortgages (nghf;fpag;gj;jpuk;) separately to: (i) Gurumurthy for Rs.70,000/-, (ii) R.Ganesan for Rs.70,000/-, (iii)A.Prabhakaran for Rs.70,000/- and (4) S.Selvam for Rs.60,000/-, totally for Rs.2,70,000/-. The defendants represented that they have also indebted to third parties. (c) The second defendant who is maintaining t...
Sannasi Vs. the Election Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioner in E.O.P.No.121 of 2006, is the revision petitioner herein.2. The revision petitioner filed the above election petition, challenging the election of the fourth respondent and prayed for a declaration that the election of the fourth respondent is illegal and to declare the revision petitioner as the elected candidate for the post of President of the Village Panchayat, in respect of Palaniyapuri Village, Attur Taluk and to take criminal action against the fourth respondent.3. The case of the revision petitioner was that the post of President, in respect of the Palaniyapuri Village, Attur Taluk, was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community, and a notification under Section 57 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, was also issued reserving the said post for the Scheduled Tribe Community. The revision petitioner belongs to Hindu Malai Kuruvan Community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the revision petitioner applied for the above said post and the four...
Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
This appeal has been arising out of the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2004 passed in O.S.No.61 of 2004 by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.2. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2004 are as follows:-The first defendant presented a Demand Draft bearing No.549046, dated 27.10.1997, for Rs.5,20,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only) through its Banker, Canara Bank, branch at Hosur viz., the second defendant, purported to have been issued by the State Bank of India, branch at Ghatkopar, (East) Mumbai and purported to have been drawn on the plaintiff Bank branch at Hosur. The said DD was presented by the first defendant through its Banker, second defendant for clearing on its behalf to the plaintiff Bank, branch at Hosur, on 06.11.1997. The plaintiff Bank, in good faith, paid a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- to the first defendant. At the time of General Reconciliation of all the payments effected by DD as per banking practice, the plaintiff's...
M/S.Durga Enterprises Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents.2. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that investigations are being carried on, in respect of the import of the Second Hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines. Thereafter, adjudication proceedings would be held to find out if any irregularities had been committed in the import of such goods. While so, this Court may be pleased to release the goods, if it deems it fit to do so, on the petitioner depositing 40% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value. They had also submitted that the adjudication proceedings could be completed by the respondents, within a period of 15 days from the time of its commencement.3. In view of the several orders passed by this Court, directing the respondents to release the goods in question, on certain conditions, and as the submissions made by the learned counsel...
V.Ramachandran Vs. the Special Director
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
O R D E R1. The petitioners herein challenge the impugned proceedings (No.SDE/KS/IV/5/2010) of the respondent-Special Officer, Enforcement Directorate, dated 03.09.2010, in and by which, a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- came to be imposed under Section 13 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, on each of the petitioners herein by the aforesaid authority for the alleged contravention of the provisions under Section 6 (3)(j) of the Act on the ground that the petitioners offered personal guarantee for a loan amount of US$ 13.5 Million to a resident outside India without obtaining prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).2. Certain vital facts, which are necessary to be pointed out for better appreciation, are concisely outlined here-under:-M/s.Helios and Matheson Information Technology Limited, Chennai-17, (hereinafter refereed to as H & M Ltd.) is a Public Limited Company and the petitioners herein are its Former Chairman and present Managing Director respectively. M/s....
T. Arivakkarasan and anr. Vs. D.Gunasundari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
1. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.413 of 1993, for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants.2. The above said suit was decreed ex parte on 3.4.1995. Thereafter, the respondent-decree holder herein filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.148 of 1995, for delivery of the suit property, which was re-numbered as E.P.No.69 of 2002, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. While executing the decree, it was found that the appellants have caused obstruction, questioning the title of the respondent-decree holder and therefore, the respondent- decree holder filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of C.P.C. in E.A.No.261 of 1998, for removal of obstruction caused by the appellants, which was re-numbered as E.A.No.234 of 2004. That application was allowed and against the same, the appellants filed C.M.A.No.69 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chenglepattu. That appeal was dismissed and against the same, this Civil Miscella...
A. Venkatachalam and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
COMMON 1. The appellant in C.A.No.172 of 2009 was convicted for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and also convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo 4 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.C.No.14 of 2004 dated 2.4.2009. The appellant in C.A.No.173 of 2009 was convicted for the offence under Sec.7 r/w Sec.12 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and also convicted for the offence under Sec.13(1) r/w Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo 4 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.C.No.14 of 2004 dated 2.4.2009.2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follow...
Gulab Basha Vs. the Inspector General of Registration and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2011
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Ni.A.No.1207/2010 dated 27.10.2010, which was received on 03.11.2010, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to register the Deed of Settlement dated 20.10.2010 executed by the petitioner in favor of his wife, Mrs.G.Rasoolbi.2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent issued a communication dated 27.10.2010 to the Inspector of Wakf, Thiruvallur, in letter No.Ni.Aa.1207/2010, dated 27.10.2010 seeking certain clarification as to registration of the Deed of Settlement in question, since the survey number dealt with in deed, namely, S.No.97A/1A belongs to Thulukkan Chatram Wakf and a copy of the same also marked to the petitioner. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that when he has executed the deed of settlement dated 20.10.2010 in favour of his wife, M...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »