Chennai Court August 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.
Sherfudeen Vs. M.A. Hajees and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC534
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 103 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate), Chengalpattu is the appellant herein.2. The appellant herein file M.C.O.P. No. 103 of 1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place at 8.00 a.m. on 27.5.1995 involving the claimant's motorcycle and an Ambassador car belonging to the first respondent herein, which was insured with the second respondent herein.3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that on 27.5.1995 at about 8.00 a.m., when the claimant was riding his motor cycle from Athur to Chengalpattu town along with one Ibrahim in proper direction by following all the rules of road and when he was proceeding at by-pass road, Chengalpattu, the first respondent's car came from Madras towards Dindivanam in high speed driven...
J. Devasagayam Vs. Rufus Inbakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC238
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This revision has been filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 568/2002 dated 28.6.2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, wherein the complaint was dismissed under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:The complainant filed a private complaint against the accused for the dishonour of cheque dated 10.7.2002 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Vellore. When the cheque was presented for collection on 11.7.2002, the same was returned as unpaid due to insufficiency of funds in the Bank account of the accused. On 23.7.2002, a lawyer's notice was issued to the accused by the Counsel for the complainant. The accused received the notice on 24.7.2002 but did not reply for the notice. Thereafter, the complainant filed a private complaint which was taken up on file as C.C. No. 568/2002 and the complainant was examined as P.W. 1. Thereafter, on 28.6.2004, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the gro...
Damodaran Vs. Poongavanam Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad375; 2006(5)CTC132; (2007)1MLJ87
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. These Civil Revision Petition Nos. 285 and 286 of 2005 have been filed against the common order dated 26.10.2004 passed in I.A. Nos. 713 and 714 of 2004 in O.S. No. 199 of 2004 on the file of the 4th Fast Track Court (Addl. District Court) at Poonamallee.2. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 199 of 2004 on the file of the IV Fast Track Court at Poonamallee (previously O.S. No. 475/1994 filed before the Sub Court, Poonamallee) is the revision petitioner.3. The respondents herein filed O.S. No. 475/1994 for partition and separate possession, for rendition of proper accounts and also for other reliefs. The defendants in the suit filed I.A. Nos. 713 and 714 of 2004 praying to grant leave to them for the reception of the document, i.e., the xerox copy of the share certificate dated 29.7.1989 in the name of the 3rd plaintiff (Selvaraj) and they should be recalled to mark the same. This was seriously objected to by the respondents herein by contending that the application ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arunachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1580
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This matter arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The insurance company, the opposite party No. 3 before the Commissioner, is on appeal against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, wherein they figured as opposite party No. 3.2. It is stated that the applicant's son was a security personnel selected by the Security and Detective Bureau Ltd., the opposite party No. 2 in the proceedings before the Commissioner and now the respondent No. 3 before this Court.3. It is stated that deceased Anandhavelu was appointed by the opposite party No. 1, the respondent No. 2 before this Court through the respondent No. 3 herein. At the time of death, he was 22 years old. On 13.11.1994, while Anandhavelu was working in the second shift, he died in the course of his employment. The opposite party No. 1, the principal employer and the opposite party No. 2, the contractor, were liable to pay the compensation. Since the appellant herein was directed to i...
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Phase-5 Residents' Welfare Association rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ558
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The following important question has arisen for consideration in this civil revision petition.Whether an allottee of a plot by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is a 'person interested' and consequently is entitled to be impleaded in the proceedings pending before the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894)?2. In exercise of the power of eminent domain, the State of Tamil Nadu acquired vast extent of lands based on the proposal of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') for implementation of the housing scheme at Sathuvachari, Vellore. After the acquisition proceedings were over, possession of the lands was handed over to the Board and the lands were plotted out and sold to the various individuals as per the scheme. 3. An award was passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and not satisfied with the amount of comp...
B.C. Muralikrishna, Vs. B. Venugopal Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ781
M. Thanikachalam, J. 1. Defendants 7 to 10, who are the legal representatives of the deceased 6th defendant in O.S. No. 4963 of 1982 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, are the appellants.2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the original suit.3. One Munusamy Chetty had four sons, viz. Adiseshaiah Chetty (first defendant), Tandavakrishnan (deceased), Narayanasamy (fifth defendant), whose legal representative is the 11th defendant/sixth respondent, and Chinnasamy (sixth defendant), whose legal representatives are defendants 7 to 10/appellants. The first defendant Adiseshaiah Chetty had two wives. While the plaintiff and the second defendant are the sons of Adiseshaiah through his first wife, the defendants 3 and 4 are his sons through his second wife.4. The suit property originally belonged to Munusamy Chetty and the same was inherited by his sons on his death on 3.9.1937 and therefore, the suit property is the ancestral joint family propert...
Uma Maheswari Vs. K. Babu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad373
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 02.04.2004 in I.A. No. 1155 of 2003 in H.M.O.P. No. 540 of 2001 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.2. The respondent/wife in H.M.O.P. No. 540 of 2001 is the revision petitioner before this Court. 3. The H.M.O.P. No. 540 of 2001 was filed by the husband/respondent herein for divorce. In that petition, the wife filed an application in I.A. No. 1155 of 2003 seeking maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards food, cloth and shelter. The said petition was resisted by the husband. However, the trial Court in due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, granted a sum of Rs. 600/- per month payable by the husband to the wife towards maintenance. Aggrieved against that order the wife has filed the above Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Counsel for the respondent...
The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Collector) Vs. Pappammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC173; (2006)4MysLJ506
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is preferred by the Government against the order of the learned District Judge, Udhagamandalam in LAOP. No. 13 of 1989, dated 9.5.1996.2.1. The lands of an extent of 11.32 acres situated in Survey Nos. 1106/4A3, 1106/4B1, 1106/4C2 of Udhagamandamam were acquired by the Government for housing a Dairy Complex at Udhagamandalam. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was gazetted on 15.12.1980. 2.2. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Not accepting the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement. 2.3. The Sub Court, Udhagamandalam, by order dated 26.9.1983 in O.P. No. 38 of 1981, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs per acre to the claimants, Kasim Sait, Ahmed Sait, Ali Sait, who are arrayed ...
C. Jayanthi Vs. the Commissioner Mettur Municipality and Eswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ128
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the short term Re-tender Notice in Na.Ka. No. 8802/2005/A3 dated 31.03.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to award the tender to the petitioner pursuant to the tender notice in Na.Ka. No. 8802/2005/A3 dated 27.03.2006 in respect of collecting charges in the 'Mettur Camp Daily Market'.3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:a. The first respondent (Municipality) issued a tender notice dated 02.01.2006 in respect of various rights, including collection of fees in Mettur Camp Daily Market for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 as per the resolution No. 443 dated 28.12.2005. As there was no participant in the tender, fresh tender notices were issued on 07.02.2006 and 23.02.2006 and sin...
M. Duraisamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Its Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ576
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11.07.2001, made in W.P. No. 9521 of 1994, in and by which, the learned Judge, after finding that the land owner had approached this Court after passing of the Award, that too with considerable delay, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of laches.2. Heard Mr. K.V. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that inasmuch the appellant had purchased the land even on 27.04.1987 and was pursuing for change of patta in his name, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have issued notice to him and failure to do so would vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings. 4. The particulars furnished by the respondents show that the land in Survey No. 733/8 as well as other lands were sought to be acquired by the Government for the form...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »