Chennai Court July 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.
R. Duraisamy Vs. D. Arumugam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ571
R. Sudhakar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.2. Brief facts of the present case are as follows:On 15.5.1991, the appellant-claimant was travelling in his TVS 50 vehicle on the Attur-Rasipuram main road. While he was travelling at the spot, by name Olamedu Bend near Kamaraj Nagar at about 6.30 p.m., the bus belonging to the transport Corporation bearing registration No. TMS 7028, was coming from opposite direction and while negotiating with the said bend, it was overtaking a standing lorry. At the same time, the two-wheeler driven by the claimant was passing the lorry and in view of the congestion and little space available at that point of time, the two-wheeler and the transport Corporation bus collided with each other. Due to such accident, the rider of the two-wheeler, the appellant-claimant suffered certain injuries. Along with the claimant, there was a pillion rider, a young boy, who also suffered ...
Centre of Indian Trade Unions (Citu) Vs. Secretary to Govt. of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ640Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated February 23, 2006 preferred on behalf of the State Textile Workers Federation within a stipulated time limit in order to put an end to the exploitative practice of Thirumana Thittam in various textile mills in the State of Tamil Nadu. According to petitioner adolescent girls below the age of 18 years are being lured by the various textile mills in the State of Tamil Nadu and are being put in a miserable situation by adopting forced labour system and thereby forcing some of the adolescent to commit suicide.2. Mr. Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, with all vehements at his command, submitted that since such illegal practice is being adopted in very many textile mills in the southern districts, it is just and necessary that the first respondent hold a Statewide survey in order to put an end to t...
Lakshmana Pillai Vs. the District Collector and the Special Tahsildar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ638
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.02.2002 in W.P. No. 7743 of 2000, in and by which, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed for questioning the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not served the Form-1 notice, which is mandatory as per Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978.4. In view of the fact that before the learned single Judge, the respondents have not filed counter affidavit meeting the said aspect, we directed the learned Government Advocate to secure the relevant records.5. Today, the learned Government Advocate, on perusal of the records informs this Court that there is no endorsement or proof to show that Form-1 notice was served to the ...
Tolaram Budhia and ors. Vs. Indian Bank, Harbour Branch Rep. by Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad377; [2006]133CompCas867(Mad)
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the orders of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai made on 17.10.2002 in M.A. No. 16 7/2002, confirming the order dated 28.2.2002 passed in I.A. No. 3310/2 000 in O.A. No. 459/01.2. The appellants in M.A. No. 167/2002 are the revision petitioners.3. The respondent bank filed an Original Application No. 547/1997 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai against the revision petitioners and two others for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,00,78,259.15 with further interest at 23.25% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation with costs and for sale of the application schedule properties. By order dated 30.11.1999 the Tribunal passed an exparte order against the revision petitioners and in favour of the respondent bank.4. The 2nd revision petitioner who is the 3rd respondent in O.A. No. 5 47/97 filed I.A. No. 3309/2000 to suspend the operation of D.R.C. No. 234...
V.S. Babu and Mrs. Suyambukaniammal Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ762
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 07.12.2001 made in WP.No.24069 of 2001, in and by which the learned Judge, based on the conclusion of the Government that the land is required for public purpose and in such an event the Court cannot compel the Government to exempt the land, dismissed the writ petition.2. Heard Mr. S. Packiaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Counsel for the first respondent as well as Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.3. It is not in dispute that their earlier writ petitions questioning the acquisition proceedings were dismissed by this Court and on direction by this Court, the appellants made a representation to the Government, praying for exemption from the purview of the acquisition. The Government, after getting report from the Requisitioning Body, viz., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in their letter dated 24.01.200 1, has intimated the petitioner...
Selvaraj Vs. N. Jeyaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC507; 2006(5)CTC316
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the complainant against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Cuddalore for enhancement of sentence and for compensation.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) The accused borrowed Rs. 75,000/= from the complainant and issued two cheques Exs.P.1 and P.4, dated 27.11.1998 and 21.5.1999 for Rs. 25,000/= and Rs. 50,000/= respectively. When the cheques were presented, both the cheqeus bounced and returned with a memo for insufficient funds. The return memos are marked as Exs.P.2 and P.3. Therefore on 7.6.1999, the complainant caused lawyer's notice on the accused which are marked as Exs.P.5 and P.6. The acknowledgment card containing the signature of the accused are Exs.P.7 and P.8. (b) In the reply notice, the accused though contended that he did not receive any money from the complainant, but he admitted that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/= from one Thandapani to met the marriage expenses of his...
Minor S. Janani Rep. by His Father and Natural Guardian Mr. R. Sriniva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ936
ORDERA.P.Shah, C.J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed against the State of Tamil Nadu and the Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education seeking a writ of declaration declaring Clause 8 (i), (ii) and (iv) of the Prospectus issued for MBBS/BDS admissions for the Academic Year 2006 - 2007 as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it considers evaluation of two different qualifying examinations for determining the inter se merit and is thus inconsistent with the Regulations of the Medical Council of India regulating the admission to MBBS Medical Course. The petitioners have filed these petitions in the interest of the entire student community as PIL, who have taken up the Entrance Examination for admission to Professional Courses for the Academic year 2006-2007.2. The petitioners are students aspiring for admission to Under Graduate Medical Course. The petitioners had written their qualifying...
Consortium of Self Financing Professional Arts and Science Colleges in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ648
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above two writ petitions had come knocking at the doors of this Court invariably involving yet another controversy of annual phenomenon in respect of the procedure for admission in private unaided professional educational institutions, both minority and non-minority.2. As a prelude, an exposition in brevity of the law as it stands at present needs to be mentioned. The entire gamut of the issue comprised of divergent and intricate factual and legal facets respecting the establishment and administration of private educational institutions in general has been more or less set at rest in all its larger constitutional perspective by the Supreme Court in the judgment handed over by a coram of 11 judges in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v State of Karnataka reported in : AIR2003SC355 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Pai Foundation case'). This judgment of the Supreme Court was referred to a Constitution Bench in the case of Islamic Acade...
Managing Director, Zoological Park and anr. Vs. S. Kalyana Raman and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ133
R. Sudhakar, J.1. The appeal has been filed against the award and decree dated 27.3.1997 in M.C.O.P. No. 332 of 1989 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.2. The appeal has been filed by the Managing Director, Zoological Park, Van-dalur and the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu. Respondent No. 1 herein is the claimant before the Tribunal.3. The claimant-respondent No. 1 was working as Liaison Officer, Combine Engineering Industries and Agencies (P) Ltd., Defence Colony Road, Chennai-16. It was stated in the claim petition that the claimant was aged 44 years and earning Rs. 2,500 per month. In the course of his employment, on 8.3.1985, respondent No. 1, was returning home from Ambattur in a motor vehicle bearing registration No. TMF 9801 and while proceeding on the New Avadi Road near ICF Annexe, the vehicle driven by the claimant-respondent No. 1 was hit by a car bearing registration No. TNY 5320 belonging to the Managing ...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and South India Viscose Ltd., Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad307; (2006)3MLJ561
J.A.K. Sampath Kumar, J.1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 13.12.91 in O.S. No. 694 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, in and by which the learned Additional Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit claim and accordingly, dismissed the suit.2. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:3. On 23.11.1985, the second plaintiff, consigned 80 cases of Royan Yarn, from their industry at Sirumugai, Mettupalayam to their depot at Dayananda Nagar, Amristar and entrusted the said goods worth Rs. 3 ,71,191-50 with the defendant a public carrier for being transported from Sirumugai to Amristar through lorry. The defendant, being a public carrier, agreed to and is even otherwise bound under law to deliver the goods safely to the place of delivery at Amristar. The goods were consigned under the defendants LR. No. 2865487 dated 23.11.85. 4. The defendan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »