Chennai Court August 2004 Judgments
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T.S. Swamikannu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ147
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The insurance company has filed the above appeal questioning the quantum fixed by the Tribunal.2. A 65 years old lady, namely, the wife of the claimant, injured in the accident held on 6.12.2000. She filed a claim petition in O.P. No. 853 of 2001. Pending that petition, she died. So the said petition, namely, O.P. No. 853 of 2001 was with drawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the basis of the death of the deceased. Now the present petition is filed, namely, O.P. No. 1672 of 2001, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,000. Challenging the same, the insurance company has filed the above appeal.3. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has submitted that earlier petition in O.P. No. 853 of 2001 was dismissed, claimants cannot sustain the present petition. He has also argued with respect to the quantum fixed by the Tribunal.4. Though the deceased filed O.P. No. 853 of 2001, in view of her death, in ...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, (Mt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ1239; 2005(1)CTC560
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal questioning the correctness of the award passed by the tribunal.2. In the accident held on 18.9.1995 the claimant sustained injuries and so the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 1,25,000. The tribunal fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,04,300. Challenging the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal.3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the tribunal is not correct in fixing the negligence only on the driver of the bus. When the claimant travelled in the bus, the bus was stopped near to SIPCOT in Guindy Estate road, but it is not, the bus stop. At that timer two persons got down and according to the claimant, when he tried to get down, the driver took the bus suddenly and thereby he fell, dawn and the back wheel of the bus ran on his right leg. It is the c...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Pallavan Transport Corporation Vs. Y. Ganesan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ2134; 2005(1)CTC762
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. None appears for the respondents. The Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal questioning the correctness of the award passed by the tribunal.2. The deceased, according to the claimants, was standing in the bus stand and the bus which was driven by the Corporation driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and thereby he died. According to the appellant, the deceased along with others tried to step up in the bus even before it is stopped and thereby he fell down. So, the negligence cannot be fixed on the part of the driver of the Transport Corporation bus.3. From Exs. P2 and P3, namely, FIR and the sketch, it is clear that the accident took place even in the bus stand itself. Even according to the claimants, there was a crowd in the bus stand. The tribunal has not rejected the case of the appellant that the deceased when he tried to step up in the running bus, fell down. The responsibility was fixed only on the ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kumarasamy College of Engineering, Represented by Its Secretary, K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC668; (2004)4MLJ390
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The huge buildings, bearing the name of some college or educational institution stand stark and empty dotted along the Tamil Nadu Highways, like skeletons, mute witnesses to the desolation created in the field of education by the myopic approach and arbitrary orders of the authorities including AICTE and the State and the failure on the part of many educational institutions to maintain a consistent standard of excellence.2. The Vice Chancellor of the Anna University goes on record to say that over 20,000 Engineering seats will remain vacant this year, because of colleges where standards are low. Alongside is the report of Tamil Nadu Colleges taking the lead in getting accreditation. Allegations of human rights violation are made against institution A or B. So what is the truth about the institutions in Tamil Nadu? What role has the State played in ensuring state of excellence and in promoting the endeavour to spread education? 3. In all these writ petitions, ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Prabhu Das and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ409
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The insurance company has filed the above appeal questioning the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I directing the insurance company to pay the compensation jointly and severally with the respondent No. 2. No dispute is raised with regard to the quantum fixed by the learned Deputy Commissioner.2. At the time of admission of appeal the following substantial questions of law have been framed:(1) Whether learned Deputy Commissioner is correct in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,91,424 under Workmen's Compensation Act and directed the appellant to pay the compensation amount when the appellant have not issued policy (Exh. A-l) covering Workmen's Compensation Act?(2) Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner is correct in not taking into consideration that appellant had issued only Group Personal Accident Policy, covering the employees of respondent No. 2 herein?(3) Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner is correct when the appellant has settled the claim ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ahamed Meeran, S/O. Sultan Mohideen and ors. Vs. S. Kumaraswamy, S/ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-2004
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC55
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 2.9.2004 of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli in I.A. No. 1076 of 2004 in O.S. No. 297 of 2002, allowing the Amendment Application filed under Order 6, Rule 1, C.P.C. on payment of costs of Rs. 1000. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.2. O.S. No. 297 of 2002 relates to House Property. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Property belonged to one Hassan Mohideen, who has executed a Registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one S. Arunachalam to deal with the Plaint Schedule Property, The Plaintiff purchased the Suit Property from the said S. Arunachalam by a Sale Deed dated 1.12.1997. In the said Sale Deed, a major portion of the Sale Price has been reserved for payment. Subsequently, the said reserved amount has been paid by the Plaintiff to the General Power or Attorney S. Arunachalam on 11.4.2002. The Plaintiff has received the 'Panapattru Receipt' from the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Roadways Ltd., (Formerly Patel Roadways Private Ltd.) Vs. Seshas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC174; 2006ACJ2802
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the above two appeals.2. The defendant in O.S.No.52/1987 and O.S.No.263/87, on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, having suffered two decrees, for payment of amounts, has preferred these two appeals, separately. In this Judgment, the parties are referred as arrayed in the original suits.A.S. No. 47 of 19903. The facts leading to the case, necessary for the disposal of the appeal.(a) The respondents in this appeal as plaintiffs had filed the suit (O.S.No.263/87), for recovery of a sum of Rs.48,162.67 with interest thereon at 9% per annum, from the defendant/appellant from the date of plaint till the payment.(b) According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff who had sold 54 numbers of 132 KV Polycone Insulators to the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, for a sum of Rs.1,66,599.07, consigned the goods in a securely packed wooden crates through the defendant Roadways at Vadalur on 26.11.1984, for safe carriage and delivery to t...
Tag this Judgment!Kanagambaram Ammal Vs. Kakammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Mad142; 2004(4)CTC596; (2004)4MLJ96
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the trial Court is the appellant. 2. The claim of the plaintiff/appellant in brief: The husband of the first defendant and the father of defendants 2 to 6 had executed a registered mortgage deed dated 5.4.1972, in respect of the suit property, for himself and on behalf of his then minor sons, viz., the defendants 4 & 6 along with the second defendant, in favour of the plaintiff, for a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which was borrowed by the deceased Veerasamy Reddiyar, on a promissory note, for the purchase of the lands from one P.V. Raghava Reddy of Agaram Village. In pursuance of the mortgage deed dated 5.4.1972, pronote debt was discharged on the same day and after its discharge, the pronote was handed over to the deceased Veerasamy Reddiar and the second defendant. Neither the Veerasamy Reddiar, nor the defendants paid any amount, towards the mortgage deed, despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Veerasamy Reddiar died leaving t...
Tag this Judgment!Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)93TTJ(Chennai)685
This appeal is against the order under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 passed by the CIT, dt. 25th Nov., 2003. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Committee on Disputes has not accorded its approval for raising the issue regarding jurisdiction of the CIT invoking the provisions under Section 263 of the IT Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by CIT was not pressed before us.Accordingly, the said ground is dismissed as not pressed, 2. The second effective ground of appeal is that the learned CIT erred in directing the AO to disallow the business deduction of Rs. 180.92 crores, being arrears of salary. Brief facts apropos this ground are that the assessee had made a claim of Rs. 180.92 crores on account of pay revision. The assessee in its reply pointed out that liability had been created in the accounts for the pay revision as per Accounting Standard-4, which deals with the events occurring afte...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Animal Husba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ123
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. This Writ petition is filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu/Secretary to Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department for setting aside the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3755 of 2001 dated 10.7.2002 and holding that the first respondent is entitled to all monetary and service benefits during the period of absence from duty i.e., from 23.12.1980 to 6.9.1992.2. When the Disciplinary Authority differs from the finding of the Enquiry Officer, whether non-affording of further opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority would vitiate the Disciplinary Proceedings is the main point arising for consideration. On the basis of the proved charges, the first respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 23.12.1980 to 6.9.1992. By the order of the Government, he was reinstated on 7.9.1992. Whether the period from 23.12.1980 to 6.9.1992, during which the first respondent was being out of duty, is to be treated as the period of duty so as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »