Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)186CTR(Mad)286
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In W.P. No. 45311 of 2002, the petitioner- seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to lift the provisional attachment made under Section 281B of the IT Act only to the extent of 45 per cent of the undivided land of the petitioner at No. 1, Crescent Park Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600017, in lieu of the 55 per cent of the constructed area in the said land which would continue to remain under attachment and further direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to dispose of the constructed flats in the said land at Crescent Park Street, T. Nagar Chennai 17, only to the extent to pay the admitted tax due of Rs. 1,51,99,834.2. Pending the above writ petition, the petitioner, in WPMP No. 66213 of 2002, seeks a direction to the IT Department, particularly the first respondent herein to release the 45 per cent of the undivided share in the land at Crescent Park Street, T. Nagar, Chennai in lieu of 55 per cent of the constructed area.3. The conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)2MLJ518
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai Division II, aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai made in M.C.O.P. No. 3679 of 95 dated 27-4-2000, has preferred the above appeal.2. In respect of death of one Radha in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 8-3-1995, her husband, sons and daughter have prayed for a compensation of Rs. 89,500/-. Before the Tribunal, first claimant/husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Ramani as P.W.2 and Exs. P-1 to P-3 were marked in support of their claim for compensation. On the side of the Transport Corporation, their driver was examined as R.W.1. The Tribunal, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus, passed an award for Rs. 89,500/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Questioning the said award, the Transport Corporation has pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ250Mad; (2003)2MLJ521
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, aggrieved by the order of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court (Employees State Insurance Court), Chennai in ESIOP. No. 2 of 1992 dated 05.10.1999, has preferred the above appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act').2. In respect of death of one K. Sachithanandaham on 28.11.1991 at about 7.00 p.m. while he was discharging his duties and operating the crane in the 8th respondent Company, the respondents 1 to 7 herein filed a petition under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees State Insurance Court (in short 'E.S.I. Court'), seeking to determine their dependents benefit as per Rule 50 the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 (in short 'the Rules'). The said application was resisted by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, by filing a counter statement. Before the E.S.I. Court, the first applicant - S. Savithri was examined as P.W.1 and one Karunakaran as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : III(2003)ACC372; 2003ACJ1210; 2003(3)CTC106
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. Both the appeals arose out of the award in MCOP.No. 5923 of 1999 dated 4.1.2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras.2. The claimant in MCOP.No.796 of 2002 is the appellant in CMA.No. 796 of 2002 and the second respondent, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai is the appellant in CMA.No. 1091 of 2002.3. The appellant in CMA.No. 796 of 2002 has filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 51 lakhs for the injury sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 8.8.1999 at 11.00 p.m. at Aminjikarai Road, near Kumananchavadi, Chennai - 56.4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant who is an Advocate examined himself as PW.1, Dr. Saichandran as PW.2 who assessed the disability of the claimant and issued disability certificate Ex.P.16 and S. Mahimai Raj, Senior Advocate as PW.3 besides the claimant's father, Sadagopan as PW.4 and PW.5, Dr. S. Gopalan who also assessed the disability of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(3)CTC513
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. These 5 writ appeals emanate from the common order dated 3.10.2002, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 15595 of 1997 and batch. While there were 7 writ petitions before the learned single judge, the writ appeals are five in number against the orders in 4 of the writ petitions, which are detailed below. Writ Appeal Writ Petition 3128 of 2002 4283 of 1998 3129 of 2002 1569 of 1998 3130 of 2002 1570 of 1998 3214 & 3215 of 2002 15596 of 1997 2. Ms. Rani is the petitioner in W.P. No. 4283 of 1998 and the appellant in W.A. No. 3128 of 2002; Fr.John Joseph is the petitioner in W.P.No. 1569 of 1998 and the appellant in W.A. No. 3129 of 2002; Mr. Santhanarajan is the petitioner in W.P. No. 1570 of 1998 and the appellant in W.A. No. 3130 of 2002. The above appeals have been filed aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in not quashing the Charge Sheet No. 865 of 1997 dated 3.12.1997 filed in PRC No. 21 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)2MLJ508
P.K. Misra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by BCG Vaccine Laboratory against the Committee for the purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiment on Animals, hereinafter referred to 'CPCSEA'. The petitioner and the respondent are organisations under the Central Government, the former under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the latter under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Prayer is for quashing the Letter No. CPCSEA/OrG/CH.2002/302 dated 30.1.2002, whereunder the expert consultant of CPCSEA has advised the petitioner to suspend all the animal experiments immediately. 2. The petitioner laboratory under the Directorate of Health Services has been established for manufacturing Freeze Dried BCG Vaccine for the control of childhood Tuberculosis and Tuberculosis Meningitis in children through the Expanded Programme of Immunizatiion, in short EPI, of the Government of India. The laboratory also functions as National Quality Control Laboratory for BCG Vaccine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(27)PTC47(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This application is brought forth seeking for ad-interim injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from registering the 2nd respondent, their agents, representatives, servants, assigns and men as subsequent proprietor of the trademark 'AYUSH' under No. 472037B in Class 3 pending disposal of the above O.P.2. Both sides are heard. Affidavit in support of the application and the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent are perused.3. The applicant herein filed the said O.P. seeking for cancellation of the registration of the trademark 'AYUSH' under Registration No. 472037B dated 11th May 1987 on the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai standing in the name of the 1st respondent. It is alleged by the applicant that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'AYUR' in various classes ; that the applicant is the owner of the artistic work titled 'AYUR'; that the applicant has given wide publicity to its trademark 'AYUR' through various advertising ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2003Mad443
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants herein. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a petition under Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Court, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil for granting order of probate of the last Will of K. Thangayyan bequeathing the properties in her favour. Since the petition was contested, a suit was registered and tried by the District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil. 2. The first respondent/plaintiff's case before the trial Court may be briefly stated as follows:- The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to the brothers, K. Nesamony, K. Nesayyan and K. Thankayyan and out of the plaint schedule items, items 1 and 2 are garden lands and items 3 to 5 are paddy lands. There had been a partition about 20 years prior to the suit among the three brothers. Item No.3 was divided into two plots of which the western 2/3rd share had been in possession of Thankayyan and his brother Nesayyan, the 5th defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(3)CTC275; (2003)IIILLJ453Mad; (2003)2MLJ445
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Appellant/petitioner is a corporate body, registered in Italy and is an air-carrier of passengers and cargo all over the world. Its' head office for India is in Mumbai. 2. The first respondent was working as Resident Sales Manager and he was in charge of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Prior to his posting as Resident Sales Manager, the respondent was working as District Sales Manager in Mumbai. On receiving certain complaints regarding the irregularities committed by the respondent as also the misconduct, the respondent came to be terminated by the petitioner by order dated 26-6-1991. Even before that, since there were complaints against him received by the petitioner's Head Office in Rome in Italy and since the respondent smelt about it, he had tendered his resignation on 25-3-1991 wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2003)2MLJ621
P.K. Misra, J. 1. All the writ petitions were heard together and shall be governed by this common Judgment For convenience reference is made to averments in WP. No. 13263 of 1996. The said petitioner is working as a teacher in third respondent school from 6.8.1984. She had obtained Secondary Grade Teacher's Certificate from Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Bangalore in 1982. After the petitioner had joined the service on the basis of such certificate, allegations were received that the certificate produced by the petitioner was not a valid certificate. Action was sought to be taken against the petitioner and many such teachers and several writ petitions were filed by them including the present petitioner. The batch of cases was disposed of by judgment dated 14.7.94. The termination/suspension orders were quashed. The writ petitions were allowed on the following terms :-' 10. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed in the following terms: (i) The o...
Tag this Judgment!