Chennai Court August 2013 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.
N.indirani Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :18. 08.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P.(MD).263 of 2014 N.Indirani W/O.Nallu, 88-B, Mahalipatti Road, Nagupillai Thoppu, Madurai-625 001. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector/District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. : Respondents Prayer Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 02.02.2014 in Vide No.2/Goonda/2014, passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and further direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenue viz., Raja @ Nagamurugan, S/o.Nallu aged 26/14 detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty. !For Petitioner : M/s.Eddy and Emboss Law Firm Mr.S.J.Chakkaravarthy ^For Respondents :...
P.Ramasamy 25/14 Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :18. 08.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P.(MD).265 of 2014 P.Ramasamy 25/14 S/o.Perumal, 3515, Tamilnadu Housing Board, Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai-625 009. : Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector/District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. : Respondents Prayer Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 02.02.2014 in Vide No.3/Goonda/2014, passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and further direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenue viz.,Karthick S/o.Ramasamy, aged 25/14 detained at Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty. !For Petitioner : M/s.Eddy and Emboss Law Firm Mr.S.J.Chakkaravarthy ^For Responde...
Brig V. Jai Kumar (Retd) Vs. the Secretary to Government of India New ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
L.t. Gen. (Retd) Anand Mohan Verma (Member-Administrative): 1. Petitioner seeks relief to quash respondents letters No.A/47063/R/1SB/SIGNS/MS(X), dated 27th July 2010, even No. dated 4th January 2011 vide which the petitioner was informed he had not been selected for promotion and even No. dated 10th August 2011 vide which he was informed his case had been Withdrawn, No. A/45501/107/2010/SC/MS(X)/276/SE/2010-D(MS), dated 15th March 2011, vide which his Statutory Complaint against non-empanelment was rejected and No. A/45501/107/2010/SC/MS(X), dated 31st March 2011 vide which request for a waiver of CR gap was rejected, and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of Major General at par with his batch mates with all attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was considered for promotion by No.1 Selection Board in October 2010 and was not empanelled. He was considered by t...
The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Fami ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
(This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 22.07.2013 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:) J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North] in C.C.302/2002, dated 25-11-2008, allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that his son Loganathan was studying in a Higher Secondary School at Villivakkam, Chennai. On 8-12-2000 and 9-12-2000 the students were medically examined by doctors under the VARUMUN KAAPPOM scheme of the Government. On examination of his son, the doctors advised him surgery for Tonsillitis and accordingly he was admitted in the 2nd opposite partys hospital i.e. the Government General Hospital, Chennai and the operation was performed between 11.30 am and 3.30 pm on 29-1-2001 and his son was normal till 6.30 pm. At about 7.30 pm, an injection was administ...
Rajesh JaIn @ Rajesh Balar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
1. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that this appeal needs to be remanded for the reasons being recorded in this order. So after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit under section 129E of Customs Act, I take up the appeal itself for hearing and decision. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal filed before him for non-compliance with provisions of 129E of the Customs Act. 3. The counsel submits that an application for waiver of predeposit was posted for hearing on 01-02-13 before Commissioner (Appeals). On that day, the appellant could not appear because the earlier advocate did not get the notice. In the meanwhile, the present advocate was engaged and he gave a letter to the Commissioner (Appeals) on 13.2.2013 requesting that personal hearing may be granted to him. But without giving such personal hearing, an interim order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 18.2.2013 directing the appellant to make a pre-d...
R. Chandra Sekaran Vs. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
V. Periya Karuppiah, Member (Judicial): 1. This is an application filed by the applicant praying to set aside the impugned Order No.Air HQ/99798/2/679535/DAV(DP) dated 18.2.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents to grant Invalid pension, from 1.1.2006 as recommended by VI Central Pay Commission and to pay the minimum pension of Rs.3500/- together with eligible dearness allowance per month with costs. 2. The facts as enumerated in the application would run as follows :- The applicant was enrolled in the Indian Air Force after due medical examination as Meterological Assistant on 10.7.1984 and was posted to various stations and he was discharging his duties well without any interruption or disturbance. The applicant developed some sort of sickness due to the climate and other conditions in the work place at Gorakhpur and his vision was affected. When he was referred to medical specialist at Bangalore, it was found that he was not fit for the trade for which he wa...
Murugammal Vs. Special Tahsildar Updated Registry Scheme
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :14. .08..2013 C O R A M The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.BANUMATHI and The Honourable Mr. Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM Writ Appeal No.2841 of 2002 Murugammal .. Appellant versus 1.The Special Tahsildar, (Updated Registry Scheme), Unit 2, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 4.S.Jayalakshmi 5.K.Pitchaimani 6.S.Ramupillai 7.S.Raghavan 8.S.Rajkumar 9.S.Ravikumar .. Respondents Prayer : Memoranda of Grounds of Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 09.08.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.11979 of 1993. - - - - - For Appellants : Mr.S.Anbarasan For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Shiva Shanmughasundaram AGP for RR1to3 Mr.R.T.Doraisamy for R6 No Appearance for RR4,5, 7 to 9 - - - - - JUDGMENT R.BANUMATHI, J & T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J This appeal is directed against ...
Rajiv Timothy Vs. Parasuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.08.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU C.R.P.(NPD) No.2473 of 2013 Rajiv Timothy .Petitioner ..vs.Parasuram ...Respondent Prayer:Civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C.against to set aside the exparte decree passed in I.A.No.332 of 2012 in O.S.No.32/2009 dated 10.12.2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Chengalpattu. For Petitioner :Mr.K.R.Krishnan For Respondent :Mr.A.Ramu ORDER The present civil revision petition is filed challenging the order of the court below in dismissing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.The petitioner herein is the defendant in a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent. The said suit in O.S.No.32/2009 on the file of the sub Court, Chengalpet came to be decreed exparte on 10.06.2010. In pursuant to such exparte decree, the plaintiff filed execution petition and the Executing Court also ordered the same and consequently, the sale deed wa...
G.Mani Vs. Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED1408.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.RAJ.W.P.No.10636 of 2008 and M.P.No.2 of 2008 G.Mani .Petitioner versus 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Commissioner, Panruti Municipality, Panruti, Cuddalore District. 3.The Commissioner of Thuthukudi Municipality, Thuthukudi, Thuthukudi District. (Now Corporation of Thuthukudi).4.The Commissioner of Local Fund Audit, Kuralagam, Chennai 108.Respondents (Respondents 3 and 4 are impleaded as per order dated 11.08.2011 in M.P.No.1 of 2011) Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent dated 21.5.2004 made in proceedings Na.Ka.No.4285/02/C1 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially issue a mandamus forbearing the respondents from recovering any amount based ...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ravi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:14. 08.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.3691 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sankagiri Branch ... Appellant Vs. 1.Ravi 2.Kandasamy 3.Gunasekaran ... Respondents (R2 & R3 ex parte) PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.61 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mettur. For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.Samy Chinna Pillai for R1 R2 & R3 Ex parte - - - JUDGMENT The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2008, made in M.C.O.P.No.61 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mettur.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The claimant, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.61 of 2006, on the file of the Mot...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »