Chennai Court August 2003 Judgments
Rotary Club of Thanjavur Rep. by Its Secretary P.M. Subramanian Vs. S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ439
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. At the stage of admission itself this CRP is taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel on either side. 2. Heard Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Devarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent herein instituted O.S.No.38 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, praying for a judgement and decree declaring that the Resolution No.8, dated 21.1.2001 passed by the Board of Directors of Rotary Club of Thanjavur Mid Town, Thanjavur is null and void, declaring that the plaintiff is and continues to be a member of the Rotary Club of Thanjaur Mid Town, Thjanjavur and restraining the defendant from enforcing and or implementing the Resolution No.8 dated 21.1.2001 and for other incidental reliefs. The suit is being resisted by the defendant-Rotary Club of Thanjavur Mid Town, Thanjavur, represented by its 21 Board of Directors. 4. Pending the said suit, the plaintiff filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Jagdish Rai and Hemraj Lalji and Co. Vs. the Union of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: III(2004)ACC509; (2003)3MLJ446
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. C.M.A.No.1596 of 1995 has been preferred as against the order dated 20.02.1995 made in O.A.No.I/1368/93 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench. 2. The appellant M/s.Kedarnath Jagdish Rai herein moved the Railway Claims Tribunal on 06.09.1993 claiming a compensation of Rs.10,110/- towards damages for the goods consigned by rail, in respect of the goods consigned on 15.02.1993 under Railway Receipt No.596443 from Kota to Madurai, consignment being 140 bags of wheat of the value of Rs.1,78,000/-. The appellant caused a notice under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 on 05.05.1993 and thereafter moved the application under Section 16 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The claim was resisted by the Railways. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:(i)Whether the applicant has title to the consignment in question?(ii)Whether the damage was due to loading of already damaged goods by the sender at the forwarding station and i...
Tag this Judgment!K. Selvaraj Vs. Sheik Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)CTC164
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J. 1. Heard both sides.2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has preferred this revision against the ex parte award passed on 29,12.1994 by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Erode, Since he has exhausted all the remedies in the said forum to set aside the ex parte award, he could not get the relief. Therefore, he has filed a plaint dated 8.4.2002 praying for declaration that the ex parte award passed in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Erode is void, illegal, obtained by fraud and against law and on facts etc. The Court below has rejected the plaint.3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., : [1968]3SCR662 principles regarding the exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court were laid, among which we are concerned with the principle (2), which reads as follows:-'Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequac...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuselvi Vs. Sivagurunathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ419
R. Banumathi, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below in A.S. No. 21 of 1989 of Sub Court, Pattukottai (dated 30.12.1989) and O.S. No. 169 of 1981 of District Munsif Court, Mannargudi (dated 04.01.1988).2. The Suit Properties relate to extensive extent of 29.44 Acres comprised in 20 Items - A 'Schedule' - Solaikulam Village, and 'B' Schedule - Two Houses in Solaikulam Village. The Suit Properties originally belonged to Ganesa Vandaiyar. Ganesa Vandaiyar went to Malaysia and earned huge money out of his business and later returned to India. From out of his money, Ganesa Vandaiyar purchased extensive properties - Suit Properties in Solaikulam Village. Thus Suit Properties belonged to Ganesa Vandaiyar absolutely.3. Case of the plaintiff is that she was affectionately brought up by Ganesa Vandaiyar from her early childhood and she was treated as his own daughter. Plaintiff was admitted in School in Mangudi Village and later, she was admitted i...
Tag this Judgment!Velammal and ors. Vs. P. Kanagu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2006ACJ1039; (2003)3MLJ410
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The appellants herein have preferred the present appeal as against the award and decree dated 1.10.01 passed in MCOP No. 213/98 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge of Kanyakumari) at Nagercoil, insofar as the Tribunal below exonerated the insurer of the vehicle and dismissing the claim against the insurer.2. Heard Mr. S. Subbaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. K. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, insurance company. With the consent of either side, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The appellants herein instituted MCOP No. 213/98 claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,05,000/= respectively against the driver owner and insurer of the maxi cab bearing Regn. No. TN-63-3829. According to the appellants, on 24.8.98 at about 7.30 a.m., the deceased C. Subramoni was proceeding on his motorcycle near Srilekmipuram. The first respondent, driver of the maxicab, drove the cab ras...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Cibiraj Rep. by His Mother M. Jayanthi and M. Jayanthi Vs. C. Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ515
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. C.M.A.No.771 of 2003 has been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 (na) CPC challenging the fair and decretal order dated 11.9.2003 passed in Pauper O.P.NO:(Unnumbered) of 2003 in O.S.No.312 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankagiri.2. The very same appellants also have preferred C.R.P.No.558 of 2003 challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2003 made in O.S.No.312 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Sankagiri dismissing the suit for default on the sole reasoning that the additional court fee has not been paid and also on the basis that the plaintiff's counsel was not prepared to conduct the suit.3. The very same petitioners also preferred CRP.No.814 of 2003 challenging the order of return dated 27.3.2003 made in unnumbered I.A.,No (Unnumbered)of 2003 in O.S.No.312 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Sankagiri.4. All the above three matters and connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are consolidated since they arise out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Konar, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Through District Collector and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)3MLJ524
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of The Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Sankarankoil made in A.S. No. 62/00 and reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif of Sankarankoil dated 28.1.98 made in O.S. No. 512/90.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents. With the consent of counsel for either side, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal though it is listed before this Court today at the stage of notice of motion. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.3. The suit O.S. No. 512/90 was instituted by the plaintiff Malaiammal and four others seeking the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 28.1.98 decreed the suit. Being aggrieved, the defendants 1 and 2 pre...
Tag this Judgment!P.R.P. Granites Vs. Check-post Officer/Assistant Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: [2003]132STC354(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. After notice, W.P.M.Ps. are listed for orders. On consent, the main writ petitions are taken up for consideration.2. The writ petitions are filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the respondent dated August 16, 2003 in G.D. Nos. 1329, 1330 and 1331/2003-2004 and direct the respondents to release the vehicles, viz., Tata Hitachi Model Ex 300 LCH hydraulic excavators with granite buckets and kits loaded on truck No. PBK 9321 and covered by Sale Invoice No. 12000637 dated July 29, 2003, truck No. HR. 38D 6404 and covered by Sale Invoice No. 12000,638 dated July 29, 2003 and truck No. GJ 6V 6621 and covered by Sale Invoice No. 12000639 dated July 29, 2003 respectively. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased three Tata Hitachi Model Ex 300 LCH hydraulic Excavators with granite bucket and kit from Telco Construction Equipment Company Limited, Jamshedpur and transported the same in trucks to their p...
Tag this Judgment!R. Dhandayuthapani Vs. C.R. Kaleel, Enforcement Officer, Employees Pro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas167(Mad); (2004)ILLJ491Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. All the above criminal original petitions are filed by the petitioner, who is A.4 in C.C. Nos. 97 to 119 and 121 to 133 of 2000 filed by the respondent on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Udumalpet praying to quash the said proceedings as against him.2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed the said criminal complaints before the Court below as against the petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Sections 14(1A) r/w. 14A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the complainant is that A2 to A.4 therein are in-charge of the A1 firm viz. M/s. Komminar Textiles (P) Limited, Pethappampatti, Udumalpet Taluk, which is an `Establishment' within the meaning of the said Act; that under Sections 6 and 6A of the Act r/w. paragraphs...
Tag this Judgment!Pazhani J., Proprietor Pazhani Murugan Lorry Service and anr. Vs. Subr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC692; 2004ACJ777; (2004)ILLJ520Mad; (2003)3MLJ647
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above appeal has been preferred challenging the order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Pondicherry, dated July 23, 2001 made in W.C. No. 21 of 1997.2. Heard Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. Senthilnarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The respondents instituted W.C.No.21 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Pondicherry claiming a compensation under Section 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the appellants herein for the death of their son employed by the first appellant herein in respect of the accident arising out of and in the course of employment as a cleaner under the first appellant. The claim has been made by the dependents of the deceased employee. The respondents claimed Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation while alleging that the vehicle belonging to the first appellant herein was insured with the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »