Chennai Court April 2005 Judgments
Ramalingam and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC1
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned common judgment dated 16.12.2002.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.3. In these appeals, the facts are that the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was given on 7.11.1996 whereas the writ petitions were filed on 28.11.1996, i.e. after the award was passed. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no writ petition should be entertained after the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been passed - vide Tej Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. ; Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, ; Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, Uttar Pradesh v. suresh Nand Jayal ; State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan and Ors. . Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the writ petition itself were not maintainable and they should have been dismissed on this ground itself. Hence, the writ appeals are...
Tag this Judgment!Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Rep. by Its Boar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC656; [2006(109)FLR807]
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the learned single Judge.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.3. The facts of the case are that the respondent was an employee of the appellant Board and he was charge-sheeted on several charges. In the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer found him innocent. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent/petitioner imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment.4. The learned single Judge has, in our opinion, rightly held that opportunity of hearing should have been given to the employee concerned. No doubt even if the enquiry officer finds an employee to be innocent, it is open to the disciplinary authority to disagree with such finding but in that case, the disciplinary authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent an...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Sivanandam, Vs. V.R. Kushal Doss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC335; 2005(3)CTC687; (2005)3MLJ236
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioners are the defendants 2 to 4 and 6 in O.S.No.268 of 1984 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, passed an order in O.S.No.268 of 1984 on 28.4.2004 stating that the Sub Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Aggrieved against the order, present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioners. 2. The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit to recover the amount due on the five promissory notes executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff and his father, mother, sister and wife. The father, mother, sister and wife of the plaintiff have assigned the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration.3. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died. The defendants 5 to 10 were added as legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. The suit was resisted in written statement filed by the third defendant raisi...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church Rep. by Its Secretary, Vs. the D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ242
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 16.9.2003.2. We have perused the impugned judgment and the record, and have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.3. The prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petition to allow the writ petitioner to function as Office Assistant in the respondent school (ELM Fabricious Higher Secondary School, Chennai), and to regularize his service from the date of his initial appointment with all backwages and service benefits.4. The fifth respondent in the writ petition is an aided Higher Secondary school. The third and the fourth respondents The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, (hereinafter referred to as 'TELC') and its Education Board manage the fifth respondent school, as well as several other schools in various districts in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the fifth respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Thilliammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC274; (2005)3MLJ17
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 10.6.1996 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 639 of 1992, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Cuddalore, has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 84,200/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum, for the death of one Arumugam, the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent and son of the respondents 4 and 5.2. According to the claimants in the claim petition viz., respondents 1 and 2, on 23.6.1992, at about 4.00 p.m., when the deceased Arumugam was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. MDA 8405, which was towed with trailors bearing Registration Nos. MDF 7085 and TNF 7540, as a loadman, the driver of the said tractor drove the vehicle rashly and negligently at a high speed by ignoring the road condition, whereby the loadman was thrown out of the tractor, in which he was seated on the manual road and ...
Tag this Judgment!The University of Madras Rep. by Its Registrar Vs. Loordhu Ammal Educa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ350
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 19.4.2005 passed in W.P.M.P.No.13249 of 2005 in W.P.No.12124 of 2005. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. With the consent of parties, we are disposing off the writ appeal finally.4. The facts of the case are that respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) is a trust which has set up an Institution known as 'Our Lady College of Education' at Chennai for imparting B.Ed course of education. The writ petitioner has alleged that the National Council for Technical Education (in short 'NCTE') having been satisfied with the requirements and other facilities and amenities as provided by the petitioner, has granted approval of the petitioner's institution by order dated 2 .11.2004 for a sanctioned strength of 100 seats for the academic year 2004-2005 under the NCTE Act. The duration of B.Ed. course is one year. The writ petitioner having got approval from the NCTE applied for ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnappan and C.K. Dhanapal Vs. Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC286; (2005)3MLJ268
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.1872 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. The revision is filed aggrieved against the order dated 19.7.2004 and made in I.A.No.889 of 2004, which was filed to send the document marked as Ex.X-1 dated 26.12.1995 in favour of P.W.2 Ponnusamy by C.K. Dhanapal, Chinnappan, Govindaraju, Thangaraju and Chinnammal(plaintiff), mainly for the purpose of comparing the signatures and thumb impression of the vendors along with their admitted signatures by Handwriting Expert or Finger Print Expert, Forensic Laboratory, Director General of Police, Chennai or any other Expert by appointing an advocate-commissioner to take the document to the Expert. 2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the suit against her brother, the first defendant and the second defendant, who is the son of another brother of the plaintiff, by name Kandasamy and claiming that the suit properties are the self...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Aslam and ors. Vs. C.N.A. Gowdhaman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC766; (2005)3MLJ357
P. Sathasivam, J.1. O.S.A.No.44 of 2005 has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.03.2005 made in Application No.4607 of 2004, in and by which the learned Judge condoned the delay of 1251 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 21.03.20 01 made in C.S.No.703 of 1996, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,0 00/- to the State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, within 15 days from that date.2. O.S.A.No.64 of 2005 is filed against the order dated 01.04.2005, granting restricted stay in Application No.1671 of 2005 in E.P.No.23 of 2005. Since, OSA.No.64 of 2005 is against the consequential order passed by the learned single Judge, it depends on the outcome of OSA.No.44 of 2005. 3. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the above appeals are stated hereunder:(a) The respondent herein entered into an agreement of sale in respect of his property at No.12-B, 4th West Cross, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030 with one S.K.M. Ibra...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P. Shanmugharaj, Vs. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC334; 2007ACJ545
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the above appeals and Revision arise out of the very same accident that had taken place on 19-12-1994, they are being disposed of by the following common Judgement. 2. Claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 528/95 filed C.M.A. No. 532/2003, praying for the balance amount of Rs.2,27,18,040/- out of the restricted amount of Rs. 3 Crores. Questioning the finding regarding negligence and compensation of Rs.72,81,960/-, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A. No. 1675/2003. Aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.48,852/- granted in favour of K. Govindaraj, claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 903/98 towards damages caused to his car, the State Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A. No. 1676/2003. In respect of compensation of Rs.2,61,200/- granted in favour of legal heirs of the car driver in M.C.O.P. No. 1084/96, the State Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A. No. 1677/2003. The same Transport Corporation has filed C.R.P. No. 1031/2004 in respect of rejection of the...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Division ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC322; 2007ACJ66; 2005(4)CTC423; (2005)3MLJ233
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award and decree passed on 24.7.2003 in M.C.O.P. No. 451 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi.2. The appellant is the transport Corporation. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased and the second respondent is the son of the deceased.3. The respondents/claimants preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kallakurichi against the appellant herein claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Kulandaivel caused on 1.2.2000 at about 8.00 a.m. at Sanisanthai on the Main road of Salem to Dharmapuri, by the rash and negligent driving of the appellant's bus by its driver.4. According the respondents/claimants, on 1.2.2000 at about 8.50 a.m. at Sanisanthai on the Salem to Dharmapuri Main Road, the appellant's passenger bus bearing registration No. TN-29-1103, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »