Chennai Court June 2006 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.
K. Madhu Vs. Dugar Finance India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2006
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas277(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These applications are filed by M/s. Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu P. Ltd., Chennai, seeking a direction to direct the Administrator, Dugar Finance India Ltd., in liquidation, to bear the past arrears of property tax and water and sewerage tax and charges payable to the Corporation of Madras and Chennai Metro Water Supply for the period from 2/98-99 to 2/03-04 for the 4th floor and 5th floor at No. 149, Greams Road, Chennai-6. There is also a prayer for injunction restraining the Corporation of Chennai and the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board from claiming past arrears of property tax and water tax and charges for the period prior to the date of the purchase, i.e., December 10, 2004 and for injunction restraining the above parties from disconnecting the water and sewerage connection and to take any action against 4th and 5th floor at Greams Dugar, No. 149, Greams Road, Chennai-6, pending disposal of the above applications.2. By order dated April...
N. Mariappan Vs. the Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by Its Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ484
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the order No. Po.Thu.NA.KA.E-12/19623/99, dated 4.6.1999, issued by the respondent and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis to any post in any section commensurate with the petitioner's qualification.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent.3. It is the case of the petitioner that his father late K.Nagappan was employed as a R.C.Driver in H Depot, Zone VIII, under the respondent Corporation and he had died in harness on 20.08.1992. The petitioner's mother had predeceased his father on 25.12.1989. The petitioner had made a representation to the respondent on 19.03.1999, for appointment on compassionate grounds, along with all the relevant records. The respondent had sent a letter to the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk and sought for the 'Family C...
Shanmugham Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC271; 2007ACJ1922; (2006)4MLJ257
R. Sudhakar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the award and decree dated 22.1.1999 in M.C.O.P.No. 23 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court), Cuddalore.2. In the claim petition, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that happened on 12.6.1994 at 9.00 hours at Cuddalore, on account of the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent-Transport Corporation. The appellant-claimant was driving a motor-cycle and at that time, he was hit by the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation.3. The Transport Corporation resisted the claim on the ground that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant.4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. The Transport Corporation examined the driver of...
A. Thangapalam Vs. the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Deve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ357
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 05.04.2002, made in W.P. No. 19439 of 1994, in and by which, the learned Judge dismissed the said petition on the ground of of laches.2. Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Housing and Urban Development Department, the appellant approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 19439 of 1994. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner raised several contentions including the one that enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was not conducted as per Rules. It was also contended that the Newspapers in which publication was effected have no circulation in that area. Apart from the above legal contentions, the petitioner also raised other contentions, pointing out certain Government Orders, which prohibit acquisition of certain lands for the purpose ascribed by the Housing Department. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, highlighting their stand. The learned...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC168; (2006)3MLJ950
R. Sudhakar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation, challenging the order of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 712 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated 11.9.1998.2. Petition under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the respondents/claimants before the Tribunal for compensation due to the death of one Saroja in a motor accident that took place on 25.3.1992.3. It is the case of the claimants that on 25.3.1992 at 16.45 hours at Karaikadu bus stop, the deceased was waiting for a bus on the extreme left of the main road and at that time, the vehicle owned by the Transport Corporation bearing Registration No. TN-32-N-102 driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed against the deceased and ran over her. Due to this accident, the deceased died on the spot. The deceased was running tailoring business and was maintaining her family and due to her death, the entire family suffered for want of income. The claimants estimated the l...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jesu Mari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC464
R. Sudhakar, J.1. This present appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.10.1998 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 38 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry at Karaikal, by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that by the rash and negligent act of the driver of the scooter bearing Registration No. TN-50/2094, the appellant/ claimant fell down, while she was walking and sustained multiple injuries. She was treated in the General Hospital, Karaikal. Case was registered in Crime No. 6 of 1998 under Sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. by the Traffic Police, Karaikal. The further case of the appellant/claimant is that she is a hawker earning a sum of Rs. 50 to Rs. 60 per day. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000 is claimed as compensation.3. The Tribunal, relying upon Ex. A-1 copy of FIR, Ex. A-3 copy of Accident Inspection Report and other documents, came to the conclusion that the driver of the scoote...
Lux Hosiery Industries Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST292(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the order of assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 made against the petitioner.2. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order is ex-facie illegal order as the assessing officer committed a manifest error in framing the assessment. The assessee has filed form F. Without rejecting form F, the assessing officer has passed the assessment order, which has been deprecated by the court. He further submitted that the assessee has already filed an appeal against the impugned assessment order before the second respondent. However, he submits that the appellate remedy is onerous because the statute requires, in order to entertain an appeal under Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 the assessee has to pay 25 per cent of the disputed tax as provided under the proviso to Section 31. Whe...
Sobia Helan Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad326; (2006)3MLJ340
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. George Dhanamony and Lazer, claiming themselves as the owner and the lessee respectively of the suit property, filed a suit in O.S. No. 10 of 1970 on the file of Sub-Court, Nagercoil, as against the District Forest Officer and the District Collector, against the order of eviction passed by the District Forest Officer, which was confirmed by the District Collector on 25.10.1969, for declaration of title and permanent injunction and also to set aside the order dated 25.10.1969, passed by the District Collector.2. After contest, the suit was dismissed on 31.10.1974. Therefore, both the owner and the lessee filed an appeal before the District Judge, Nagercoil, in A.S. No. 357 of 1974 and the same was allowed, decreeing the suit, declaring the title of the plaintiffs, granting injunction and also quashing the order of the District Collector, dated 25.10.1969.3. Aggrieved over the same, the State of Tamil Nadu filed Second Appeal No. 679 of 1986 on the file of High ...
Acit Boran Sam Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3786
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 449 and 302 IPC in S.C. No. 253 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Sessions and stand sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the former offence and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the latter offence. Default sentence is also provided for. Hence the appeal.2. Heard Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.3. The prosecution case is that by trespassing into the house of Abheysingh - since deceased, the accused shot him with his rifle and thereby caused his death. The occurrence according to the prosecution is shown to have taken place at 4.00 a.m. on 5.2.1995 i.e., in the early hours immediately after the mid night of 4.2.1995. P.Ws. 1 and 5 are the sons of the deceased, while P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. Admittedly, in this case P.W.1 alone ...
Mr. Chandmull Verma Alias Anantha Verma and Mrs. Anilkumar Verma Vs. D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ368
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.(I) (A) CRP NPD No. 1554/05:1. The above revision petition has been filed by the tenants against the common judgment dated 27.6.2005 rendered by the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCA No. 1663/2004, dismissing the appeal filed against the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.P. No. 564/2003 in RCOP No. 878/2002.2. The respondent herein filed RCOP No. 878/2002 against the revision petitioners under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18/1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act) for fixing the fair rent for the petition schedule building, namely, the rear portion of II floor bearing Door No. 166, Mint Street, Chennai.600 079.3. The revision petitioners filed counter statement and they have specifically pleaded that RCOP No. 878/2002 is barred under Section 19 of the Act as a petition for fixation of fair rent was already filed by the respondent herein in RCOP No. 122...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »