Chennai Court September 2006 Judgments

R. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary t ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(4)CTC728

P. Sathasivam,J.1. By consent of all the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 13.07.2006 made in W.P. No. 32217 of 2005, the writ petitioner R. Dakshinamoorthy, has filed the above writ appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.4. According to the petitioner, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 352 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Thirukovilur for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from planting trees in the suit properties. There is a specific averment in the plaint that the land was originally assigned in favour of one Ponnuranga Pillai in the year 1968 and the said Ponnuranga Pillai sold the same in favour of one Pakkirisamy on 15.12.1971. The said Pakkirisamy was in possession and enjoyment of the land without interruption up to 14.02.1983 on which date, he sold the land in favour of the petitioner for lawful con...

Nataraj Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(4)CTC735

R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellant in this case stands convicted in S.C.No. 326 of 2003 on the file of Additional Court of Sessions and Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Coimbatore under Sections 302 and 352 I.P.C. for which he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- carrying a default sentence for the former offence and six months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- carrying a default sentence for the latter offence. Hence he is before this Court in this appeal. Heard Mr. K. Kalyanasundaram, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. According to the prosecution at 10.00 a.m. on 27.8.2002 the accused poured diesel on Nachammal aged about 70 years and set fire to her resulting in her death in the course of the day. In the course of the same transaction, he pushed violently P.W.1 - Nachammal's son, who came in between and thereby ...

Tmt. Meera Vs. the Special Officer Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ka ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The complainant in COP No.5/20003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram is the appellant herein. Her case was as follows :- On 20/3/2002 a sum of Rs.2,000/- had been withdrawn from her account with the 1st opposite party bank. She had not gone to the 1st opposite party bank at all on that day nor did she send an authorised person to deposit or withdraw any amount from her account. This was brought to the notice of the bank officials and also the Special Officer of the 1st opposite party bank. There was no response. A complaint was sent through her husband by courier. There was no response to this also. A legal notice dated 31/5/2002 was sent to all the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party sent a reply on 14/6/2002 seeking 15 days time to enquire into the matter. Though five months had elapsed, there was no response from the opposite parties and in such circumstances, the complaint came to be filed. 2. The 1st opposite...

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Minor thenmozhi @ P ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC580

P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge. Fast Track Court No. IV), Coimbatore at Tiruppur dated 5.9.2005 made in MACTOP No. 1373 of 2000, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore has filed this appeal.2. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in an accident that took place on 3.9.2000, the respondent herein claimant through her guardian prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has passed an award of Rs. 58,140 with interest at 7.5%. Questioning the same, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.3. The respondent is represented by the Counsel.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly states that they are aggrieved only with regard to quantum determined by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, there is no need to go into the finding regarding negligence.5. The wound certificate Ex. P3 refers the age of the injured as 12. In...

Bharat N. Parikh and Rajen A. Kamdar Trading as Safe Earthing Electrod ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: LC2007(1)1

M. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent. By consent of the counsels appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent, both appeals have been taken up together for hearing and a common judgement is passed.2. The appellant in the present appeals is the defendant in the suit C.S. No. 550 of 2005. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 550 of 2005, had filed the suit praying for a judgement and decree in his favour granting:a) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant by himself , his servants or agents or anyone claiming through him from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's well established trademark 'S.E.E.' by using the offending trademark 'S.E.E.' or any other mark or marks which are in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's well established trade mark 'S.E.E.' in respect of earthing electrode either by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale o...

Octanorm (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Upasana Finance Limited, Rep. by It ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: II(2007)BC488

ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This application has been filed under Order 14, Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. praying to reject the plaint under Clause 12 of Letters Patent read with Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.2. Heard both sides. This application has been filed by the applicants to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit properly is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the original side of this Court.3. The suit is one for recovery of money which is said lo have been borrowed by the defendants by giving the suit properly which is located outside the jurisdiction of the original side of this Court as a security for repayment and not for declaration of title to the property.4. Mr. V. Sambasivam, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants fairly submitted that though the application to reject the plaint was filed, it is not maintainable in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. ...

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vasantha Kogilam and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC567

P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, the National Insurance Company Limited, Madurai, has filed the present appeal.2. In respect of death of one Srinivasan in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 17.5.1999, respondents 1 to 6 herein claimants prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, after finding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle concerned, passed an award for Rs. 4,25,352 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly states that they are mainly aggrieved only with regard to the quantum determined by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the other aspects.4. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, who is none else than the wife of the deceased, her husband was working as a Poojari in a temple as well as a Post Master in a post ...

K. Ashraff Vs. S. Gangaraman

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(5)CTC36

ORDERS. MANIKUMAR, J.1. Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.06.2006 made in I.A. No. 297 of 2006 in O.S. No. 65 of 2005 on the file of Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Coimbatore in refusing to mark the xerox copy of the unregistered Lease Deed, dated 07.07.1989, through the plaintiff at the time of his cross-examination.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:(i) The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. According to him, one Mrs. P.A. Fathima, wife of the first defendant in the suit, after receiving proper and valid consideration of Rs. 1,90,000/- from him, executed a registered Mortgage Deed, dated 23.03.1990 in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the property at Coimbatore. She agreed to repay the mortgage amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and also agreed to redeem the mortgage within three years, failing which the penal interest of 30% would be levied on the mortgage amount. (ii) The said F...

J. Patrick Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Home ( ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1008

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 07.06.2004 followed by the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 12.07.2004 and subsequently by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 19.05.2005 followed by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.10.2005 and ultimately by the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No. 321 dated 18.05.2006 and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. 2. The petitioner while working as Police Constable in Nemili Police Station was issued a charge memo by the Superintendent of Police, Vellore, namely the 5th respondent dated 13.05.2004 stating that the petitioner has not attended duty for more than 21 days without prior permission from the higher authorities. In respect of the said charge considering the defense of the petitioner who had stated that he was suffering from heart ailments and therefore he has become unconscious and directed one of his relatives to communica...

M.N. Abdul Wahab Vs. Salem City Municipality Corporation, Rep. by Its ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2006(5)CTC136

ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29.06.2005 in I.A. No. 1913 of 2003 in O.S. No. 234 of 2003 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem condoning the delay of 482 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:(i) The petitioner/plaintiff is the owner of the suit building constructed on the land belonging to 'Sozha Velalar Samugam Trust'. The plaintiff took the vacant site from the Trust long back and put up a tiled building to the knowledge of the Trust. The plaintiff has been paying the rent for the vacant site to the then President of the Trust and then deposited the same into the Court in O.S. No. 1781/83 on the file of District Munsif court, Salem. Now, he has filed O.P. No. 1/2003. The property tax was in the name of the plaintiff under assessment No. Old.15783, New No. 110201. The plaintiff and their men filed a suit in...