Chennai Court October 2007 Judgments

Branch Manager Ramanathapuram District Central Co-operative Bank, Rama ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The Opposite parties in COP No.137/1992 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ramanathapuram are the appellants herein. The complainant had pledged his jewels and borrowed money from the Ramanathapuram District Central Co-operative Bank. The jewels pledged by him were as follows:- (i) Stone necklace 1 No. (ii) T.V. rings 2 Nos. (iii) Leaf-ear rings 2 Nos. The total weight worked out to 50.500 gms. The bank deducted 5 gms being the value of the stones and valued the stones for a weight of 45.500gms at Rs.12,600/- and gave a loan of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The jewels were lost by the bank. The insurance company with which the jewels of the complainant as well as the jewels of others were insured paid 75% of the total value of the jewels. The bank offered to pay the amount at 75% given by the insurance company. The complainant was not willing to get it and he filed the complaint seeking the value of the jewels including the ...

Rajan K. Moorthy Vs. M. Vijayan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1254

S. Palanivelu, J.1. This revision has been filed against the judgment, dated 22-11-2006, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2006 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (FTC. No. II), Kancheepuram, as against the judgment, dated 20-4-2006, made in C. C. No. 36 of 2005. on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Kancheepuram.2. Petitioner is the accused in the calendar case, which was taken on file on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent, on the strength of dishonour of a cheque, allegedly delivered by the petitioner to the respondent. The said case went against the petitioner in the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Kancheepuram, which, the petitioner carried in appeal before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. II), Kancheepuram, before which Court also, the same result came to be recorded. Aggrieved over the said judgment of the appellate Court, the petitioner has preferred this revision before this Court.3. Pending revision, the petitioner has produ...

T. Titus Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Governme ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)6MLJ550

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in W.P. No. 10144 of 2006 is to quash G.O.Ms. No. 477 P&AR; Department dated 21.11.1990 and the proceedings of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagercoil/second respondent herein, dated 15.2.1999 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary and service benefits.2. W.P. No. 15067 and 17307 of 2006 are filed to quash the proceedings of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagercoil/second respondent herein, dated 20.1.1995 and 25.10.1994 respectively and to direct the respondents to pay all backwages and consequential service benefits for the period in which no posting was given to the petitioner.3. By disposing W.P. No. 10144 of 2006, the issues involved in the other two writ petitions can also be resolved. Hence all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitions are as follows:(a) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typi...

Indian Bank, Represented by Its Chief Manager Vs. P. Vijayakumari, Pro ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad45; (2007)6MLJ766

R. Sudhakar, J.1. The bank has filed this writ petition to set aside the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal extending the time given to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the bank as per the award of the Lok Adalat dated 30.11.2006 in M.A. No. 203 of 2006.2. The facts of the case for disposal of the writ petition is as follows: The first respondent, who is the proprietrix of Sakthi Industries availed loans from the petitioner bank for four different purposes, viz., (1) Open Cash Credit; (2) Supply Bills Purchase; (3) Medium Term Loan (building) and (4) Medium Term Loan (machinery) with interest at 20.25%. There was an hypothecation agreement in respect of movables, plant and machinery and the first respondent also deposited the documents of title deeds of properties by way of equitable mortgage. The loan amount, according to the bank, was not properly settled and therefore, notice was issued for recovery of the same and on the failure on the part of the first respondent to settl...

Deputy General Manager, Export Import Bank of India Vs. Presiding Offi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)IILLJ119Mad

R. Banumathi, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge dated July 17, 2000 made in W.P. No. 15369/1993, whereby, the learned single Judge, set aside the award in I.D. No. 66/1988 and remanded back the matter to Labour Court, the Management has preferred this Appeal.2. The fact giving rise to this Appeal could briefly be stated thus:(i) The second respondent was appointed as Driver-cum-Messenger for a period of six months on contract basis by an order dated July 12, 1984. By another order dated February 14, 1985, the second respondent was appointed as Driver-cum-Messenger on probation for a period of one year, on certain conditions. The second respondent's basic pay was fixed at Rs. 620/- per month + Dearness allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and House Rent Allowance, and his total salary per month was about Rs. 1,228.20.(ii) By another order dated January 29, 1986, the second respondent was informed that on consideration of his work performance the Appellant-Ma...

M. Ravichandran and R. Sundari Vs. the Inspector General of Police, Cb ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ865

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. This petition has been filed to direct the Inspector General of Police, CBCID, Chennai, first respondent herein, to take up the further investigation of the case in Crime No. 13 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Inspector of Police, Killai Police Station, Cuddalore District, fifth respondent herein, in accordance with law.2. Facts of the case go thus:2.1. Petitioners are husband and wife. Father of first petitioner got two wives and first petitioner is the son through first wife, while sixth respondent and one Arumugham are the progeny through second wife. Bad- blood was existing between first petitioner and his step-brothers with regard to properties.2.2. It was alleged that on 13.02.2007 at about 07.00 p.m., when the petitioners were in their house, Jaishankar and Arumugam gained entry into the house and asked first petitioner to remove his FIAT car to facilitate unloading blue metal for their building, for which the petitioner replied that he would do it sometime l...

V. Gopinath, Vs. the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Developmen ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(2)CTC42; (2007)6MLJ437

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Vasanth Apartments was developed as a Group Development in S. Nos. 376/2 and 3, 379/1 and 380/4 and 5 in Velacherry village within Chennai City and it contains 12 blocks, out of which 11 blocks, each containing 16 to 18 flats, are residential ones. The entire buildings were completed and the flats were sold to the public and completely occupied by the purchasers during 2001. The total extent of the layout being more than 10,000 sq.m., 10% of the area has been reserved as Open Space for communal and recreational purposes as per Rule 19(b)(ii) of the Development Control Rules and accordingly, as per the finally approved plan dated 16.5.1997, an extent of 1164.75 sq.m. (12,532 sq.ft.) area has been reserved as open space and transferred to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority by way of a Gift Deed dated 18.2.1994.2. Thereafter, the Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners, has filed W.P. No. 4766 of 2007 before this Court praying to issue a Writ of Mandamu...

D'zine Garage Pvt. Ltd. rep. by Its Director Mr. Hari Sethuraman Vs. D ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: LC2008(2)322; 2008(36)PTC614(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The respondent/plaintiff is carrying on the business of a leading interactive agency, specializing in online communication and claims to be one of the oldest interactive agencies with global presence, with offices at Chennai, Mumbai and London. They have extensive experience in managing online communication for a spectrum of the industry, viz., banking, insurance, healthcare, IT etc. Their product suite includes a core content management system 'Brew Master' which enables creation, management and deployment of virtually any type of content across multiple websites or interfaces. The respondent/plaintiff is the pioneer in 'Communities build brands' in India with a number of successful experiences in this segment. In the course of business, the applicant/plaintiff adopted the mark D'ZINE and has registered the said mark under No. 1323883 dated 3.12.2004 in Class 35 in respect of 'advertising which includes website building and maintenance, etc. The respondent/plaint...

P. Rajagurusamy Vs. the Sub Registrar and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad71; 2008(1)CTC284; (2007)6MLJ109

ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the registration of the cancellation of the document No. 2747 of 2005 dated 25.8.2005 executed by the respondents 4 to 9 in favour of the petitioner and four others on 16.3.2005 bearing Document No. 1456 of 2005 at the office of the first respondent herein.2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.3. The case of the petitioner who seeks the writ, is that he along with four others entered into an agreement for purchase of the undivided share having an extent of 2.50 acres in Old Patta No. 7, Alandur Zamin, comprised in Survey Nos. 5/1, 10/1, 17/1, 18/1, 19/1, 13/1, 14/1, 45/1, 48/1, 89, 91, 93/2, 22, 23/1, 24/1, 25/1, 26, 30/1, 37, 47/1, 61/1, 90, 92/2 and 94/2, Saidapet Taluk, from one R. Vasantha and five others for a ...

M. Chandrasekar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Secretary, Ministry o ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2007)6MLJ675

ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This Public Interest Litigation was preferred by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure safety of the school children travelling by school vehicles by following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. : (1997)8SCC770 .It was alleged that the actual working of the licensing procedures are lax, which is causing accident and punishment meted out even in the fatal accident is not deterrent enough. The schools do not take care to ensure that children studying in their schools and travelling by school buses safely board and alight to and from schools. The children in the Kinder Garden and standards 1 to 3 require special attention.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Management of Schools are negligent in this regard and they should think their obligations to the students and parents does not extend beyond school hours. The drivers of the offending vehi...