Chennai Court December 2004 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.
P. Pachiyappan Vs. R. Palanisamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC716
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The claimant is the appellant. He filed the claim petition praying for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Erode. It is further seen that the said petition was returned by the Court below for rectifying certain defects. However, the same was represented with a delay of two years and six months. For condonation of the said delay, the claimant has filed LA. No. 1668 of 1995. By the impugned order dated 1668 of 1995. By the impugned order dated 12.3.1996, the Tribunal after holding that the delay in representation is abnormal, refused to accept the stand taken by the claimant and dismissed the said petition. Against which the present appeal has been filed.2. In the appeal, though the driver, owner and the Insurance Company were duly served notice from this Court, none of them contested the appeal by engaging a Counsel.3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant.4. It is seen from the materials placed before th...
G. Ganesan and ors. Vs. J. Surendran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC699; (2005)1MLJ191
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. By consent of parties, the main CRPs are taken up for disposal.2. The above CRPs have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the obstructors against the order and decree dated 2.11.2004 made in M.P.Nos. 493 of 2004 and 495/2004 in E.P.No. 78 of 2001 in RCOP.No. 982 of 1999 on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:The first respondent filed a petition against one Gomathi, a tenant, for fixing fair rent in an RCOP and the fair rent was fixed as Rs. 49,000 by the Rent Controller. But the rent was not paid by the tenant. Therefore, Rule 1 filed RCOP 982 of 1999 for eviction on the ground of willful default. By order dated 19.07.2000, eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller. Thereafter, E.P.No. 78 of 2001 was filed against the said Gomathi/tenant and when the bailiff went to execute the order of the Court, the 11 obstructors (Rule 3 to Rule 13) resisted the execution of the order of...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.K. Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ978; (2005)1MLJ448
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25-2-1999 made in W.P. No. 3648 of 1997.2.1. Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under :The first respondent is the registered owner of Tata Benz Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-38-Z-0327. On 14-9-1996 at 11.00 a.m., the Forest Officers intercepted the lorry near Bhavani Siriyampalayam check post and found that a quantity of 100 Kgs. of Sandalwood was being transported. A show cause notice, in compliance of Section 49-B of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, was issued to the owner of the lorry as well as to the persons who were travelling in the lorry calling for explanation on 26-9-1996. The first respondent submitted his written explanation on 4-10-1996 denying knowledge of the alleged illicit transportation of Sandalwood. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the first respondent, the second respondent, by proceedings dated 4-10-1996, finding that it is not enough for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›