Chennai Court December 2005 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.
Jeeva Transport Corporation Vs. K. Viswanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: 1(2007)ACC76
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court) Gopichettipalayam dated 14.2.1997, erstwhile Jeeva Transport Corporation, Erode has filed the above appeal.2. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a Motor Vehicle Accident that took place on 29.5.1994, the first respondent herein claimant prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh. The Tribunal based on the materials placed, after finding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Transport Corporation Bus, passed an award for Rs. 2 lakh with interest at 15 pet-cent from the date of petition, till the date of deposit.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant after taking us through the award of the Tribunal has raised the following contentions:(i) The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the bus driver was also equally responsible for the accident. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the entire liability in favour of the Lorry owner/Insurance Company.(i...
M.S. Luthufullah and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Balu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC169; (2006)1MLJ160
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Respondents in M.C.O.P.No.5124 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai are the appellants.2. The brief case of the claimant is as follows:- In respect of an accident that took place on 22.10.2000 at about 10.40 hours, the claimant was riding the cycle from north to south direction in Sydenhams Road on the eastern side of the road with milk. When he was proceeding opposite to door No.1, Jalal Electricals, Tata Sumo Car bearing registration No. TN-65-J-6666 belonging to the first appellant came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle, in which the claimant has sustained multiple fractures and the cycle also damaged. On account of injuries sustained, the claimant filed the claim petition, praying for a compensation of Rs.11,36,000/-. The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, besides marking Exs.P-1 to P-8 in support of his claim before the Tribu...
Aban Loyd Chile Offshore Ltd. Vs. Subash Projects and Marketing Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR79(Madras); 2005(5)CTC781; (2006)1MLJ226
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issues raised are identical in both the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. In W.P.No.4617 of 2005, M/s.Aban Loyd Chile Offshore Limited, Chennai-8, challenges the order dated 29.01.2005 in O.P.No.237 of 2002, in and by which the designate Judge appointed MR.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN, a retired Judge of this Court as Arbitrator to discharge the disputes between the parties.3. In W.P.No.14408 of 2005, the petitioner Food Corporation of India, Chennai-6, challenges the order dated 01.04.2005 in O.P.No.282 of 2 004, wherein the very same designate Judge appointed MR.JUSTICE M.S. JANARTHANAM, Judge (Retired) as sole Arbitrator to discharge the dispute arising out of the Agreement No.DM/Civil/10 dated 04.11.2000 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent.4. Heard Mr.Arvind P.Datar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.4617 of 2005, Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P....
Ganesan Vs. Ponnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC695
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioner is the third defendant in O.S. No. 57 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai and the revision is filed challenging the correctness of the order dated 26.12.2002 in respect of the appointment of advocate-commissioner for division of items 1 to 3 of the suit properties, viz., 2/5 share in item No. 1 and 2/6 share in item No. 2 of the suit properties made in final decree proceedings in I.A. No. 46 of 2002.2. The deceased Govindaraj Asari along with his sister, the first respondent Ponnammal filed the suit for partition of 2/5 share in items 1 to 3 of suit properties claiming that the suit properties are the properties of their father the deceased Ramasamy. The suit was filed that the first plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 are brothers, who died during the pendency of the proceedings and the second plaintiff and the fourth defendant are sisters and the first defendant is their mother. Their father Rama...
Y. Kidhermoidheen Vs. the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ388
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the land in S. No. 65, Solur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District in which the petitioner is in occupation, unless by following the due process of law.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he has constructed a house in the year 1960 in S. No. 65, Solur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. He got electricity connection, his name has been included in the voters list and he has also a ration card and is living there for over 40 years. This property and some other Survey Numbers are included in the 4th ward of Solur Panchayat. There is a lake by name Periyankuppam from which water flows and used for irrigating several lands and it is far away from the petitioner's house. The surplus water from the lake flows into Vellakkal dam. The Panchayat has constructed a canal for the flow of water from the lake....
G.V. Films Ltd. Vs. S. Priyadarshan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: [2006]287ITR561(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J.C.S. No. 454 of 2005:1. Suit filed by the applicant/plaintiff-G. V. Films Ltd. (GVFL) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-auction purchasers and their men from interfering with the applicant's/plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, except by due process of law.Application No. 543 of 2005:2. Application filed by GVFL for temporary injunction on the above lines.3. W. P. No. 17576 of 2005 was filed by the applicant/plaintiff (GVFL) challenging the order of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) under Rule 39 of the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 ('ITCP Rules'), and to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Income-tax Department from interfering with the possession of GVFL Ltd.4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as in their rank in C. S. No. 454 of 2005.5. Earlier, by order dated August 22, 2005, G.V. Films Ltd. v. S. Priya-darshan [2006] 281 ITR 114, F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla J. has passed the...
Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Departmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC45; (2006)1MLJ285
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The revision petition questions the decretal order passed in LA. No. 113 of 2005 in O.S. No. 116 of 2004 dated 25.8.2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram, dismissing the interlocutory application filed for condonation of the delay of 306 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree.2. Following are the few facts leading to the filing of the revision petition. The first respondent is Ambasamudram Vatta Thirukoil Paniyalargal Sangam. The said Sangam initially filed a suit before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram, which was numbered as O.S. No. 55 of 2001, praying for a judgment end decree of declaration declaring that the members of the Sangam are the Government servants and for a consequential relief of injunction restraining the revision petitioner from effecting publication to the effect that the members of the Sangam are the employees of the temple. The suit was transferred to the file of the Additional District Mun...
A. Sreedevi Vs. Vicharapu Ramakrishna Gowd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC748; I(2006)DMC475; (2006)1MLJ116
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The respondent in HMOP No. 706 of 2004 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai has filed this revision under Article 227 of The Constitution of India. The HMOP No. 706 of 2004 was filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights and for other reliefs.2. The case of the respondent herein is that he married the revision petitioner on 15-03-1992 according to Hindu rites and customs in the presence of relatives and elders and the marriage function was held at the residence of the revision petitioner herein at Madras; that after the marriage, they lived together at Madras for three days; that on 18-03-1992, the respondent went to Addankivaripalam to attend his personal work, later, he came back to Madras on 19-03-1992; that the petitioner herein refused to live with him without any reasons; that subsequently, both of them went to Addankivaripalam and after two days the revision petitioner came...
S. Samsen Papli Vs. Sridevi, Judicial Magistrate No. Ii
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC590; 2006CriLJ1991; 2005(5)CTC765
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that when para 55 of the judgment in : 2005(3)CTC480 (Y. Vijayalakshmi @ Rambha v. Manickam Narayanan) envisaged that a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act shall be filed by the payee himself along with other conditions, the non-compliance of the first and foremost condition, namely, that 'the complaint shall be signed by the payee himself', will not only make the complaint irregular; but also will show that the Magistrate, who has taken it on file, has committed wilful disobedience of the direction of the High Court, amounting to contempt.2. The learned senior counsel would also rely upon : AIR1955All161 (Sessions Judge, Meerut v. City Magistrate, Meerut), wherein it was observed as follows:'It is not for the superior courts to say under what law they have issued the directive. The subordinate courts should presume for the time being, unless the contrary appears, that the order is lawfu...
N.R. Anbumani Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Under Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC319
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. L. Chandrakumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.T. Gopalan learned Additional Solicitor General representing Mr. K. Ravindranath learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner along with others for the post of Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The notification calling for appointment is available at Page No. 1 of the paper book furnished by the petitioner. The qualification as stated in the notification is as hereunder:'A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal, unless he is or he has been or is qualified to be, a District Judge.'The writ petitioner is admittedly a practising lawyer having 17 years of experience. Therefore it ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »