Chennai Court August 1987 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 Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd., Vi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad163
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred by the Managing Director of the Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Limited, respondent in M.O.P. No. 312 of 1978, against the Award dated 22-9-1979 passed in the said M.O.P. which was disposed of along with M.O.P. No. 275 of 1978, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore (111 Additional Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore,2. In this appeal, we are concerned with the claim in M.O.P. No. 312 of 1978, which was filed for compensation of Rs.21,000/-for the injuries sustained in a bus accident at about 11.30 a.m. on 26-3-1978 at Kannigapuram Village.3. The cases disclosed the following facts: Palanisami, the decease(! in C.P. No. 275 of 1978, aged about 32 years, was a driver in the lorry MDM 7,576 belonging to K.A. Subbayan, Kuttiappa Transport at Palladam, earning about Rs.600/- per month.4. Meerabai Ammal, the petitioner in C.P-No. 312 of 1978 aged about 40 years is an agriculturist in Sarani Village in Tindivanam taluk earning about Rs.300/-per mo...
M.R.F. Ltd. and 15 ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC507(Madras)
ORDERNainarsundaram, J.1. These writ petitions coming on for hearing on Friday the 21st day of September, 1987 and this day, upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and the orders of the High Court dated 13.5.1981 in W.P. Nos. 2878 to 2881 of 1981-2.6.1981 in W.P. No. 3299 and 3300 of 1981 ; 28.7.1981 in W.P. Nos. 5665 and 5666 of 1981; 14.8.1981 in W.P. Nos. 6307 and 6308 of 1981-15.9.1981 in W.P. Nos. 7778 and 7779 of 1981: 811.1981 in WP Nos' 10439 and 10440 of 1981; 8.12.1981 in W.P. Nos. 11123 and 11124 of 1981; 12.2.1982 in W.P. Nos. 1114 and 1115 of 1982; 224.1982 in W. P Nos. 2998 and 2999 of 1982; 22.6.1982 in W.P. Nos. 4342 of 1982; 30.6.1982 in W.P. Nos. 4609 and 4610 of 1982; 1.7.1982 in W.P. Nos 4641 of 1982; 14.7.1982 in W.P. Nos. 5103 of 1982 ; and dated 22.2.1983 in W.P. Nos. 1642 and 1643 of 1983 and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein and the records relevant to the prayers abovesaid and comprised in the return of t...
Binny Limited Vs. the Controller of Stores and Purchase, Karnataka Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ464
ORDERP.K. Sethuraman, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned VIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in the petition C.M.P. No. 1301 of 1981 in O.S.No. 2889 of 1981 (which was originally numbered as Application No. 37 of 1981 in C.S.No. 753 of 1980 on the file of this Court) filed by the second defendant/first respondent herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.2. The plaintiff filed the suit C.S.No. 753 of 1980 on the file of this Court, under Order 14, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. praying for an injunction restraining first defendant viz., the Stale Bank of India, from paying any monies under the suit guarantee and also an injunction restraining the second defendant viz., Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, from receiving payment under the suit guarantee Thereupon the second defendant filed Application No. 37 of 1981 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of th...
Udaya Kumar Vs. Govindan Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC550
Swamikkannu, J.1. This appeal and Memo, of Cross Objection coming on for hearing on Wednesday the 19th and Friday the 21st day of August 1987 and on this day and Memo, of Cross Objection upon perusing the petition of Appeal and Memo, of Cross Objection the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Asraf Ali for M/s. Raj and Raj Advocates for the appellant in AAO No, 2.51/82 and for the 1st respondent in Memo, of Cross Objection Mr. p. Ramaswamy Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 in AAO No. 251/82 and petitioners in Memo of Cross Objection and of Mr. A. Devanathan Advocate for the 3rd respondent in AAO No. 251/82 and 2nd respondent in Memo, of Cross Objection the court delivered the following judgment. Whether the policy contemplates additional premium or not is the question that arises for consideration in this case. It is common ground that only Rs. 324/- has been paid as premium at the rate of Rs. 6/- per head for 54 passen...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kuppuswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC311
Swamikkannu, J.1. On looking into the policy which is now marked as Ex. A-4 in this case, it is seen that the risk for which the compensation is claimed for, is not covered. It is only a third party risk that is contemplated as the subject' matter of the insurance. The relevant portion of the policy reads as follows:Section II--Liability to Third Parties...(a) death of or bodily injury to any person but except so far as it necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured and excluding liability to any person being conveyed in or on the Motor Cycle unless such person is being conveyed by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment.2. In this regard, Mr. R. David, learned Counsel for the appellant refers to the decision in K. Gopalakrishnan v. Sankaranarayan 1969 ACJ 34 and M. Muthu Krishna v. Brinda 1982 Sup...
Arumuga Muthiriyar Vs. the District Revenue Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ428
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act 57 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for determining the cultivating tenant's ceiling area of the petitioner and revision of the surplus lands to the second-respondent. There are certain extents demised by the second-respondent by way of lease to and in favour of the petitioner. To determine the cultivating tenant's ceiling area of the petitioner in the above proceedings, the extents held by his sons are sought to be tacked on to the extents held by the petitioner under the cover of Section 6-A of the Act. Section 2(6) of the Act defines cultivating tenant's ceiling area as follows:2(6) 'cultivating tenant's ceiling area' means five standard acres held by any person(a)(i) partly as cultivating tenant; and (ii) partly as owner or possessory mortgage; or(b) Wholly as cultivating tenant.Section 6-A was i...
Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad246
ORDER1. The petitioner impugns the proceedings of the second respondent imposing a penalty on the petitioner under R.124 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Rules on the ground that there was wastage in excess of the percentage fixed pursuant to R. 38(1) of the Rules in the manufacture of the preparations by the petitioner. The body of the impugned proceedings runs as follows -'TV1 Raptakoss Brett & Co., Madras are holding a L-1 licence under M & TP (ED) Rules 1956 for, the manufacture, possession and sales of medicinal preparations; 2. As per the report from the Deputy Commissioner (P & E) Madras. excess wastages were noticed in their preparations during Feb. 1980 as per Annexure. (already sent). A show cause notice against levy of penalty under Rule 124 was issued to them in the reference second cited as excess wastage beyond the permissible limit is a violation of Rule 380) of M & T P (ED) Rules, 1956. 3. The licences ...
Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC545
Swamikkannu, J.1. The appellants herein submit that the finding given by the Tribunal that there had been no evidence worth-mentioning let in so as to uphold the claim that there had been rash and negligent driving of the P.T.C. bus in question by its driver during the time of the occurrence is contrary to the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary let in by the appellants herein. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants by their counsel that PW 3 Krishnamurthi, a witness claimed to be an eye witness for the occurrence by the appellants herein specifically stated that he heard' thud' sound of the vehicle in question dashing against an object and also immediately seeing the dead body of the deceased underneath the bus in question. In other words, the evidence of PW 3 is that apart from hearing the sound of the collision, he had also seen the body of the deceased being extricated from underneath the bus which was lying in between the pair of front wheels and r...
Lakshmi and anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC463
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. Tbe appellants are the petitioners before the Tribunal, who filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 praying to pass an award for Rs. 35,000/- being the compensation amount on account of the death of the son of the petitioners/appellants in a motor vehicle accident on 20-7-1980.2. The case of the petitioners/appellants before the Tribunal is as follows:On 20-7-1980 at about 1.30 a.m. the driver of the lorry with crane bearing Registration No. MDC 9447 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and crushed the deceased Perutnal to death on the spot at the G.S.T. Road at Pallavaram and the driver of the vehicle is directly responsible for the accident. The respondent is the owner of the vehicle and hence it is liable to compensation.3. The respondent died counter denying either rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the crane of the respondent and disputing the age, occupation and daily income of the deceased. It is also contend...
Carborandum Universal Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC33; 1988(15)LC271(Madras); 1988(35)ELT288(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner is one and the same in all these three writ petitions. The petitioner wanted to avail of the exemption in Notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976, hereinafter referred to as the notification. The years for which the petitioner wanted to avail of the exemption are 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. There has been correspondence spread over the years 1977 to 1979. The last letter of the petitioner on the subject is dated 10-10-1979. The second respondent declined to accord the exemption on the ground it would involve refund and the limitation aspect as per Rule 11 then in force would come in the way. The order of the second respondent dated 15-10-1980 is being put in issue in these three writ petitions. The impugned order of the second respondent runs as follows -'Please refer to your letter dated 10-12-1979 on the above subject.It is seen from your above letter that you are trying to make out a claim on account of the exemption contained in Notificat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »