Chennai Court April 2003 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.
Bcg Vaccine Laboratory, Rep. by Its Director Vs. Committee for the Pur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
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...
K. Natarajan Vs. P.K. Rajasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ305
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.190 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Court, Karur is the appellant herein.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is his wife's cousin brother and that he used to visit plaintiff's father-in-law's place. On one such occasion, during the year 1981, the defendant approached the plaintiff for some loan as he desired to start a new business. According to the plaintiff, the defendant in fact asked the plaintiff to join the business, which he intended to start, at Palani. In or about July, 1981, plaintiff expressed his willingness for starting carpet business at Palani. Thereafter on 19.8.1981, the defendant came to Karur and asked plaintiff to give Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing materials for manufacturing carpets, namely, looms, yarn, etc. The further case of the plaintiff is that even though at that time he did not have the necessary funds, with a view to help the defendant, he (plaintiff) borrowed Rs. 15,000/- fr...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M.K. Sekar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2006ACJ672
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Court), Madurai dated 08-10-2002, made in M.C.O.P. No. 718/1998, United India Insurance Company Limited, Madurai-2 has preferred the above appeal.2. In respect of death of one Dr. Rajathi in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 27-10-1997, her husband and minor children preferred a claim of Rs. 40,02,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant, husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and 4 more witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 to 5, besides marking Exs. P-1 to 26 in support of their claim for compensation. On the side of the owner and Insurance company of the vehicle, no witness was examined, nor document was marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry TN 59 E 9151, passed an award for Rs. 18,63,000/- with interest at 9 per cent per...
South India Exports, Rep. by Its Partner Mr. Indermal Ramani and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: 2003(88)ECC679
P.K. Misra, J. 1. These writ petitions were heard on merit on the consent of the counsels appearing for the parties at the stage of consideration of the stay petition. Common prayer in al the writ petitions is for quashing the notice issued by the second respondent dated 7.2.2002 under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the W.P. No. 4695 of 2003 are as follows:- The Union Government has formulated Export Import Policy under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, hereinafter referred to as 'Foreign Trade Act'. Under the Export Import Policy, concessions were given for import as well as export. One such concession relates to import of raw materials in advance without payment of duty with an obligation to export. Under Export Import Policy, the licensing authority, namely the first respondent is the authority vested with the power of montioring and to enforce the conditions of the licence under Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Foreign Tr...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Division Ii) Ltd., Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
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...
Liebherr Export Ag, Rep. by Its Agent Mr. D. Chaudhry, Sole Proprietor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ502
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, appellant herein, wherein, the writ-petitioner had challenged the tender notice issued by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, first respondent herein, dated 7-10-2002 and sought a direction to accept the tender by the petitioner in pursuance of the tender notice dated 14-8-2001 and award the contract. 2. Neyveli Lignite Corporation had required certain machinery and therefore floated a tender on 3-2-2001 for the supply of 6-Nos. of pipe layers. There was a specification that the concerned pipe layers should be equipped with Power Shift Transmission System (in short 'PST System'). It seems that the second respondent responded to this tender notice and the petitioner could not since the petitioner, who is also a manufacturer of pipe layers, did not manufacture the pipe layers equipped with PST System. The pipe layers manufactured by the petitio...
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Local Office Vs. S. Savithri an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
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...
T. Soundarapandian Vs. G. Rathinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ627
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner in RCOP. No. 1/1992, before the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, and the said Petition was filed under Section 10(2)(i) and 10 (3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1968, for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent and the petitioner requires the premises for his own use or for the use of any member of his family and in this case to run a shop for his son. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction only on the ground of owner's occupation and rejected the ground of willful default in payment of rent. The tenant preferred an appeal in RCA. No. 31/1994, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Madurai and the said appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord has preferred this civil revision petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the petition premises and the responden...
Venkatachalam Vs. Angammal and Geetha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad361; (2003)2MLJ525
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The order dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff, the petitioner herein to send the document Ex.B2 filed by the defendants/respondents for comparison by the Handwriting Expert is sought to be set aside in this civil revision petition.2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents herein. The written statement has been filed by the first respondent stating that there was a panchayat muchalika dated 20.12.2000 by which the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief sought for. After examination of the witnesses on both sides was over, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.16 of 2002 under Order 26 Rule 10(A) C.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the document, namely panchayat muchalika filed the defendants/respondents to obtain the opinion of the Handwriting Expert contending that the signature found in Ex.B2 was not put by him and as such, Ex.B2 is a fabricated one. The same wa...
S. Achuthan and anr. Vs. M. Gopal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »