Chennai Court April 2005 Judgments
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC310; (2005)3MLJ90
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.08.2001 made in M.C.O.P. No. 463 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes), Chennai, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,41,500/- with interest at 9% p.a., for the death of the deceased Surendrakumar, in a motor accident said to have taken place on 08.11.1996 at 21.00 hours at Medavakkam Tank Road.2. According to the claimants, who are parents and sisters of the deceased Surendrakumar, on 08.11.1996 at about 21.00 hours when the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle from south to north on the left side of the road, a bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-N-1778 belonging to the appellant transport corporation came in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and died.3. The claimants filed M.C.O.P. No. 463 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (C...
Tag this Judgment!Shreyas Enterprises Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Director Sudhir Ahuja Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC81; (2008)11VST38(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 19.4.2005. With the consent of the parties we are disposing the writ petition itself finally.2. It appears that an assessment order was passed against the appellant under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The appellant filed a rectification petition under section 55 of the said Act, but instead of deciding that petition on merits the Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle by order dated 8.3.2005 has observed as follows:-'Please take notice that the contentions stated therein were examined by me. If you are aggrieved by the order, you might have availed of the statutory remedy available under section 31 of the TNGST Act, 1959.I request you to make efforts to settle the arrears of tax within 3 days of receipt of the notice, failing which action under section 26 of the TNGST Act 1959 would be taken.'3. A perusal of the above order shows that the ...
Tag this Judgment!M. theophilus Rajendra Kumar Vs. the Director of Matriculation Schools ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC385
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.3.2005 of the learned single Judge by which he has vacated the interim stay of a termination order.2. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Suman Datta has observed as follows:-'We are not expressing any opinion as to whether the services of an employee could be terminated for not passing the shorthand and typewriting test, but we are clearly of the opinion that the High Court erred in law in staying the order of termination as an interim measure in the pending writ petition. By such interim order if an employee is allowed to continue in service and then ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, then it would tantamount to usurpation of public office without any right to the same. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court staying the order of termination.'3. Thus it is well settled that the High Court cannot grant interim stay of termination or suspension orders as that would...
Tag this Judgment!N. Veerasamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Secretary to Govt., Min ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ564
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. N. Veerasamy, the Treasurer of the political party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has filed this Pro bono Publico seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Central Government, the respondents 1 and 2 and the State Government, the respondents 3 and 4 to take action against Mrs. Lakshmi Pranesh, the fifth respondent herein under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 for having violated the provisions of Rules 3,7 and 9 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968.2. According to the petitioner, he has been a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for the past 28 years. He was a former State Cabinet Minister for two periods and has got a political career spanning over 3 decades by dedicating himself to the welfare and well being of the people of Tamil Nadu. 3. The Central Government was formed in May 2004 by Democratic Progressive Alliance led by Indian National Congress. On the assumption of power, the new Government took a deci...
Tag this Judgment!T. Siva Raman Vs. P. Renganayaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ1
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision is preferred by the husband against the order of the petition in I.A. No. 870 of 2003 for dismissing the Original Petition No. 1195 of 2002 filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court dismissed the Petition I.A. No. 870 of 2003 as per order dated 30.9.2003.2. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner married the respondent on 16.3.2000 as per Hindu Rites and Customs in Vijaya Raju Kalyana Mandapam, Adyar, Chennai and the marriage is an arranged marriage and after marriage, the respondent stayed in the matrimonial home at B-2, Flat No. 26, C.V. Koil Street, Alwar Thirunagar, Chennai-600 087 only for five days and thereafter, she left India to the United States of America on 30.3.2000 and who was employed in Arizona as Software Consultant. The revision petitioner got a job in Los Angeles in California State in the United States of America as a Post Graduate - MCA in Computer Application and has join...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayaka Mission's Kirupananda Variyar Medical College, rep. by Its Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC772
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In these batch of writ petitions, the correctness or otherwise of the petitioner institutions having admitted the students for medical courses under the Management Quota requires to be considered.2. In terms of the Regulations of the Medical Council of India (M.C.I.), eligibility for admission into First year M.B.B.S. Course is a pass in the +2 examination with specific subjects and obtaining a minimum of 50 marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The State Government, in their orders in G.O.Ms. 100, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 14.5.2003, issued directions prescribing higher percentage of marks for eligibility for all the unaided institutions to be followed for admission of students for Academic Year 2003-2004. The Government Order contemplates increase in the minimum marks for eligibility, namely 60% for Open Category and Backward Class, 55% for Most Backward Class and 40% for Scheduled Caste. Admissions which were contrary to the said G...
Tag this Judgment!Alliraj Gounder Vs. the Inspector of Police and the Superintendent of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC673
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.11.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The petitioner in his writ petition has prayed for a mandamus directing that the pending counter case in Crime No.345 of 2003 and the closed parent-case in Crime No.343 of 2003 on the file of the first respondent be transferred to the second respondent for a fresh investigation.3. The Supreme Court in C.B.I v. Rajesh Gandhi, 1997 Crl.L.J 63 observed that an accused cannot have a say as to who should investigate the offence he is charged with. Decision to investigate or decision on agency which should investigate does not attract the principles of natural justice. In our opinion the same principle applies to complainants also, and they cannot ordinarily have a say as to which agency should investigate an alleged criminal offence.4. Moreover if the writ petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation being do...
Tag this Judgment!Gea Energy System (India) Ltd. Vs. Litostroj E.i., Rep. by Mr. V. Subr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC761
P. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both the parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The above original side appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11.03.2005 made in O.A. No. 931 of 2004 in C.S. No. 904 of 2004, in and by which the learned Judge, after finding that the applicant / plaintiff has not made out a case for interim order, dismissed the said application.3. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 904 of 2004 is the applicant. He filed the said suit against the defendant/ first respondent in this appeal for declaration that the termination notice dated 21.07.2004 is null and void and for permanent injuncti ing the defendant from invoking the Arbitration Clause 7.5.4 of the contract agreement dated 26.09.2002 / 15.11.2002 as well as for mandatory injunction for fulfilling the contractual obligation as per the contract agreement dated 26.09.2002 / 15.11.2002. Pending suit, the plaintiff / applicant filed O.A. No. 931 of 2004, praying for in...
Tag this Judgment!Adhirai M.M. Ibrahim Vs. the Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC260
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In these two writ petitions, though the cause of action and the facts leading to the filing of the respective writ petitions are different, I propose to deal and dispose of both the writ petitions by a common judgment, in view of an important common legal issue which arises for consideration. In order to appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the stand taken by the respondent/police Department, it would be of considerable relevance to deal with both the writ petitions by a common judgment. The common issue is that the petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their request to conduct a protest meeting and the issue involves as to how far the police can refuse to grant permission to hold such meetings.2. W.P. No. 3210 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition):In this writ petition, the petitioner claims to be the Founder President of the Indian People's Party. Their aims are stated to be inter alia to fight for the rights and we...
Tag this Judgment!The TuticorIn thermal Power Station Industrial Co-operative Society Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ1143Mad
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the ed single Judge dated 17.12.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the demand notice issued under section 45B of the Employees State Insurance Act. In our opinion, the petitioner/appellant has a clear alternative remedy of filing an application under section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act before the Employees State Insurance Court. We cannot approve this kind of practice of directly filing writ petition in this Court when a clear alternative remedy is available. We have repeatedly held in Indian Additives Limited v. Indian Additives Employees Union, 2005 W.L.R. 22 and in Madura Sugars Staff Union and Ors. v. Madura Sugar Mills, 2005 W.L.R. 25 that when alternative remedy is available ordinarily that must be availed of. That is the settled legal principle that has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court in Premier Automob...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »