Chennai Court March 2014 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.
D.Thiagarajan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:13. 03/2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS P-1 D.THIAGARAJAN, 72 YRS, S/O.K.S.DURAISWAMY, 290 PAPER MILLS ROAD, PERAMBUR CHENNAI600011 VS R-1 STATE REP.BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUVANNAMALAI R-2 STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUVANNAMALAI TOWN PS., TIRUVANNAMALAI ORDER CRL.OP.No.5436 of 2014 P.DEVADASS, J., Petition for anticipatory bail in PRC No.33 of 2010 for offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Thiruvannamalai.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is coming up for committal. There is apprehension that referring to Section 209(b) Cr.P.C the Committal Magistrate may remand the petitioner to custody, thus, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited several decisions.3. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), petitioner is involved i...
K.Elangovan Vs. Principal Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :13. 03.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.Nos.25231 to 25233 of 2013 K.Elangovan .. Petitioner in all the writ petitions -vs- 1. The Principal Secretary to Government Department of Tourism and Culture Fort St.George Chennai 9 2. Commissioner of Tourism O/o Commissioner of Tourism Tamil Nadu Tourism Complex Wallajah Road Respondents 1 & 2 in all the Chennai 2 .. writ petitions 3. P.Pushparaj .. 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.25231 of 2013 4. G.Kamarajan .. 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.25232 of 2013 5. A.Venugopal .. 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.25233 of 2013 Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto, questioning under what authority the third respondent in each of the writ petition is holding the post of Assistant Director in the second respondent office. For Petitioner :: Mr.L.P.Maurya in all W.Ps. For Respondents :: Mr.R.Balaramesh Additional Government Pleader for R1 ...
The District Collector Vs. Saroja and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED:13. 03.2014 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR C.M.A.No.947 of 2014 And M.P.No.1 of 2014 1. Tamilnadu State rep. by The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai 1.2. The Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai. ... Appellants Vs.1. Saroja 2. Usha 3. Kaliamman 4. Rajiv 5. Minor Kamachi Respondents The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award & Decree dated 19.02.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.728 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Tirupattur, Vellore District. For Appellants : Mrs.M.Jayashree Government Advocate. JUDGMENT In an accident, which occurred on 04.08.2004, one Mr.Raghu, died. Legal representatives, viz., wife, two major daughters, one major son and minor daughter of the deceased and parents aged about 60 and 58 respectively, filed MCOP No.728 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The police jeep bearing Regn.N...
P.Lakshmi Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :13. 03.2014 Coram The Honourable Mr.SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH Writ Petition No.25704 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 1.Tmt.P.Lakshmi 2.I.Sumathi 3.V.Vijayakumari 4.P.Ilanthendral 5.T.Pazahatamilmaran .. Petitioners Vs. 1.State rep.by The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai 600 009 2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Ministry of Local Administration Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai 600 009 3.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, 4.The Commissioner/Secretary of Appointment Committee, Nellikuppam Municipaltiy, Nellikuppam, Cuddalore District, 5.The Chairman/Chairman of Appointment of Committee, Nellikuppam Municipality Nellikuppam, Cuddalore District, 6.The District Employmetn Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore, 7.The Zonal Municipality Executive Committee, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District, 8.The Executive Commissioner, Municipality ...
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. K.S.D.J. Durai ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / 1st Respondent filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.237/2008, dated 12.05.2011._ A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant, his wife and his brothers and their wives took mediclaim policy for various sums from the opposite party. The complainant and his family members have renewed their policies year by year. The complainant and his wife submitted application form for the policies for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively to the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. The premium for the complainants policy was Rs.1344/- and his wifes premium was Rs.691/-. The complainant took the policy originally from M/s.Oriental insurance Company Limited, Chennai and regular...
The Director, M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. and Another ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
(The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / opposite parties filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.67/2010, dated 15.10.2010.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant purchased Maruti Omni Car TN 37 AZ 0572 on 11.4.2009 by obtaining hire purchase loan from the 2nd opposite party for a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- payable in 32 instalments and since there was default in payment the opposite parties seized the vehicle from the complainant and thereby the complainant filed this consumer complaint claiming for handing over the car and to pay Rs.3,50,000/-as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony and for costs. 3. The opposite parties denied the allegations and contended that sine the complainant being an chronic defaulter a...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sundaram Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Pradip Kumar Das, J. 1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby cenvat credit on mobile phones was allowed. 2. Heard both sides and perused records 3. The Learned Authorized Representative on behalf of Revenue submits that mobile phone is not related to the business activities and therefore they are not eligible to avail credit. 4. I find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Excel Crop Care Ltd. 2008 (12) S.T.R. 436 (Guj.) held that cenvat credit is eligible on mobile phones. There is no material that mobile phones were used by the employees not related to manufacture. Following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Excel Crop Care Ltd. (supra), I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by Revenue is rejected....
Dlf Southern Homes Pvt.Ltd, Rep.by Its General Manager (Marketing), â ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
(The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.18/2010, dated 08.04.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.02.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant on the basis of the advertisement in the newspaper applied for purchase of apartment from the opposite party of their Garden City DLF OMR at Thazhambur village, Chengalpet Taluk for which he had paid Rs.8,48,512.50 in two payments as on 14.01.2008 and 7.5.2008. But the opposite party provisionally allotted an apartment No.4 in Tower No...
K.B. Prithviram Vs. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd, President / Executive ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complaint filed under Section 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The complainant purchased 1.5 litres bottle of Pepsi from Ajantha Bakery, Periyar Nagar, Chennai -82 on 29.5.2004 with batch No. 291 dated 5.5.2004 for his children and when the complainant look for the details of manufacture which are not available and the children when consuming little by little they experienced nauseating feeling and vomitted immediately and thereby on 31.5.2004 the complainant sent a representation to the Chief Executive of Pepsi India, Holdings Private Limited, Teppadabegur Neelamangala, Bangalore and also sent a representation on 14.6.2004, 25.6.2004 and 1.7.2004 for which a reply was received on 30.6.2004 denying the allegations the bottle did not contain the necessary details as per the conditions of prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. The complainant sent a letter dated 3.7.2004 to the Pepsi Board of Directors, Pepsico Incorporation (P...
V.Kanimozhi Vs. Director of School Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:11. 03.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.1068 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 V.Kanimozhi .. Petitioner - Vs - 1. The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 600 006.2. The Chairman, Teachers' Recruitment Board, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the proceedings of the second respondent published in the website on 03.01.2014, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of P.G. Assistant Tamil for the year 2012-2013. For Petitioner : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy For Respondents : Mr.D.Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader - - - - - ORDER The Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB), Government of Tamil Nadu issued Notification/Advertisement in Advertisement No.02/201...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »