Chennai Court December 2004 Judgments
V. Munusamy (Deceased) and ors. Vs. M. Suguna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC107
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the order of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 30-4-1992 made in A.S. No. 393/89 wherein the learned Judge remanded the suit to the trial Court (III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) for fresh disposal in conformity with Section 4(1) of the Partition Act. First defendant in I.A. No. 9105/81 on the file of 3rd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant in the above appeal. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the said suit for partition. The suit property is a building bearing Door No. 70/1, New No. 13 in Sundaraja Perumal Koil street, Peravellore, Madras-82, originally belonged to one Athiammal. She executed a settlement deed on 19.2.1951 in respect of the said property in favour of defendants 1 and 2 who are brothers. They were residing in a portion of the suit building and had let out the remaining portions to defendants 3 to 9. The first defendant h...
Tag this Judgment!V. Lingasamy, S/O. Vairavan Vs. the Secretary to Government, Home Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC639
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Chellapandian, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for Respondents 1 to 4.2. This petition has been filed by the brother of a life convict, namely Balusamy, who was confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, at the relevant time.The petitioner has prayed for providing adequate medical treatment to his brother by admitting him in the Government Hospital and to provide interview facilities for his family members and his advocate, etc. He has further prayed to prosecute the fourth respondent and other prison officers responsible for torturing and ill-treating petitioner's brother. He has also prayed for granting adequate compensation.3. So far as the prayer relating to adequate medical treatment is concerned, it is now apparent that in the meantime, the brother of the petitioner has received treatment and has become normal. So far as the prayer to provide interview facilities to his fam...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. J. Senthil Kumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC500
AR. Ramalingam, J.1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, the second respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 1797 of 1992 on the file of the III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is the appellant.2. In respect of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5.10.1991 at III Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras while the claimant Senthil Kumar was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. TSE 4992, a Contessa Car bearing registration No. TSE 8000, driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed upon the motorcycle, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and has claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the owner of the car viz., M/s. Saleem Leather (P) Limited, Madras and the Insurance Company the second respondent.3. The Tribunal, after examining the claimant Senthil Kumar as P.W. 1, Dr. Sai Chandran as P.W. 2, the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company viz., Gopalakrishnan as R.W. 1 and marking Exh. P. 1 to P. 7 as well as Ex. R. 1 viz., Copy of the Insurance Policy dated 30...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director Vs. T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC359; 2006ACJ810; 2005(1)CTC161
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai dated 30.01.1997 made in MACTOP. No. 1632 of 1995, the erstwhile Pallavan Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, has filed this appeal.2. In respect of death of one Tamilarasan in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 17.04.1995, his wife and parents have prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. In support of their case, the first claimant widow of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and one Rajanbabu as PW.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were also marked. On the side of the Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus involved in the accident was examined as RW.1 and the sketch (Ex.R.1) and F.I.R. (Ex.R.2) were also marked. The Tribunal, on consideration of all the materials placed, after holding that the driver drove the bus in rash and negligent and he was responsible for the accident, passed an award for Rs. 2,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12...
Tag this Judgment!Dove Investments Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Investme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]124CompCas399(Mad); (2005)6CompLJ490(Mad); 2005(1)CTC249; (2005)1MLJ269; [2005]60SCL604(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the parties, the Appeals themselves have (been) taken up for disposal. M/s. Dove Investments Private Limited, Mumbai-21; M/s. Max worth Investments Private Limited, Chennai-34; and Mr. P.N. Mohan, partner of M/s. Sandhya Priya Investments, Chennai-41 -respondents 2 to 4 in Company Petition N.13/111A/S.R.B of 2003 on the file of Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai, aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.2004, directing M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts-first respondent therein to register transfer of 22,93,000 shares in the name of the M/s. Gujarath Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., petitioner therein within 30 days of receipt of the said order, have preferred C.M.A. No. 3188 of 2004 under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956. Questioning the very same order, M/s. Sterling Holiday Resorts, first respondent therein filed C.M.A. No. 3223/2004. Since both the appeals arise against the very same order of the Company Law Board, the sam...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ravi Chandran Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1365; 2005(2)CTC341; (2006)IILLJ329Mad; (2005)2MLJ15
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant seeks to challenge the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kumbakonam dated 4.9.1998 in M.C.O.P. 34 of 1998, in and by which, the Tribunal, while granting a sum of Rs. 65,000 towards compensation for permanent disability, granted a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs. 2,000 towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,200 towards loss of income, Rs. 5,000 towards extra nourishment and Rs. 15000 towards compensation for loss of earning capacity. In all a sum of Rs. 1,07,200 was granted. Out of which, the Tribunal proceeded to deduct 20% towards the negligence contributed by the Appellant and arrived at a compensation of a sum of Rs. 85,760 which was directed to be paid with interest at 12% per annum.2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the appeal are as follows: On 30.1.1997, the Appellant who was a Medical Representative, was about to return to Kancheepuram from Kumbakonam and was waiting at the bus stand. At about 8.30...
Tag this Judgment!Nallathambi Vs. the Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad192; (2005)1MLJ470
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 15-7-2004 of the learned single Judge.2. The appellant has filed the writ petition, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore to grant police protection for the property in dispute and award adequate compensation.3. It appears that the appellant obtained a decree for possession and title in O.S. No. 625 of 1992 from the Court of District Munsif, Cuddalore as against the fifth respondent. Learned counsel for the Government stated that the property in question belongs to the Government. If that is so, in our opinion, the Government was a 'necessary party' to the suit but the Government was not made a party in the said suit. Hence, the decree obtained by the appellant is not binding on the Government. In this situation, if the appellant is allowed to execute the decree against the Government, it will lead to strange consequences. For instance, if a property belon...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Veluchamy and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ1483; 2005(1)CTC38
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. United India Insurance Company, Tiruchengode aggrieved by Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 28.11.2003, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1241 of 2000, has filed the above appeal. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor accident that took place on 25.7.2000, the claimant/first respondent herein, prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. In support of his claim, he himself got examined as P.W.I, and he also examined one Rakkiappan and Dr. P. Gnanaprakash as P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively, besides marking Exs. P-1 to P-9. On the side of the owner and the insurer, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. The Tribunal, after analysing the materials and after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question, passed an award for Rs. 14,62,352 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of deposi...
Tag this Judgment!N. Selvan Vs. the Inspector General of Police, Crpf,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ352
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 27.8.2004.2. The appellant was only a daily wage employee who worked from 1991 to 1994. A daily wage employee is only a temporary employee. It is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State Of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla : [1991]1SCR29 .3. Hence, obviously, the appellant has no right to the post.4. The learned single Judge has, however, directed that he should be considered for fresh appointment if the law permits. In our opinion, there is no infirmity in this order of the learned single Judge. If the law does not permit, obviously, the appellant cannot be considered. For instance, if there is an age limit, then, this Court cannot direct that he should be considered if he has crossed the age limit. It is only if the rules permit relaxation in the age limit that the authority concerned can consider such relaxation in accordance with the said p...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veluchamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-2004
Reported in: I(2006)ACC416
P. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruchengode, aggrieved by award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 28.11.2003, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1241 of 2000, has filed the above appeal. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor accident that took place on 25.7.2000, the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein, prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. In support of his claim, he himself got examined as PW 1 and he also examined one Rakkiappan and Dr. P. Gnanaprakash as PWs 2 and 3 respectively, besides marking Exhs. PI to P9. On the side of the owner and the insurer, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. The Tribunal, after analysing the materials and after holding that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question, passed an award for Rs. 14,62,352 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Since th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »