Chennai Court March 2007 Judgments
Sumathi and ors. Vs. N. Balakrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ683
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This appeal is by the claimants against the judgment dated 19.2.2004 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 5308 of 2001, whereby Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras, has ordered the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 9,79,020 with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the death of S. Lakshmanan, due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident said to have taken place on 16.7.2001 in Turnbulls Road, Nandanam, Chennai.2. When the matter is taken up for final hearing, it is brought to our notice that against the same judgment, the insurance company, respondent No. 2, has preferred an appeal before this Court in C.M.A. (NPDB) No. 3696 of 2004 challenging mainly on the quantum aspect and this Court, after a careful analysis of the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, by a detailed order dated 16.12.2004, dismissed the appeal holding that the amount arrived at by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no...
Tag this Judgment!The Southern Railway, Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. S. Ponnusamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ154
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Southern Railway has filed this appeal against the decision of the learned single Judge rendered in W.P. No. 13301 of 1999, whereunder, the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No. 1 and quashed the 4(1) Notification as well as declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking to acquire the lands belonging to respondent No. 1.2. The brief facts are as follows:The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued by the State Government on 1.6.1999 for acquisition of certain lands for the Southern Railway. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with by invoking the urgency clause and declaration under Section 6 was made on 2.7.1999.3. Respondent No. 1 filed W.P. No. 13301 of 1999 seeking to quash the Notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, so far as they relate to the acquisition of 0.28.5 ares of...
Tag this Judgment!CaptaIn Dr. R. Bellie and Dr. Smt. Seetha Bellie Vs. the Sub Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad331; 2007(3)CTC513; (2007)3MLJ1025
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. W.P. No. 25407/05 was preferred by the appellants, Capt. Dr.R.Bellie and another for a direction on the respondents to register the pending document Nos. 120/04 and 121/04, both dated 28.4.04 and, consequently, hand over the same to the appellants/writ petitioners. In the said case, learned Counsel for the appellants referred to a judgment rendered by the Supreme court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Basant Nahata reported in : AIR2005SC3401 and a judgment rendered by this Court in W.A. No. 1923/05. Learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 22.9.06 passed in W.P. No. 25407/05, without giving any finding on merit, directed the respondents to pass appropriate order.2. In the present appeal, the main ground taken by the appellant is that the learned single Judge has failed to take into consideration that even before the appellant purchased the property, the title deeds to the property pertain to the years 1983 and 1969 respectively and the sai...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Bank of Madura Ltd. Vs. M. Natesan and the Presiding ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ300
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner seeks to quash the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, the second respondent herein in I.D. No. 41 of 1992 dated 16.6.1997.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.(a) Petitioner is a Commercial Bank, introduced a scheme called Dina Semipu Daily Thrift Scheme with an idea of inculcating the habit of saving small amounts by the general public. Commission agents were taken on contract for services, with specific agreement with the bank and such agents have to collect the deposits from the deposit-holders at their door steps and deposit the same in the bank and also to canvass fresh deposits for the scheme. The contract is terminable by giving one month notice on either side. (b) The first respondent was appointed as Commission agent. He entered into an agreement and his contract was terminated by order dated 19.3.1991. First respondent raised Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation Officer and...
Tag this Judgment!P. Umspathy and anr. Vs. S. Muthupandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC44
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 8 Rule 2, CPC to accept certain documents, he has come forward to this Court by way of this revision.2. The petitioners/defendants have filed the Interpretation Application No: 19157 of 2006 in O.S. No. 2391 of 2005 before the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to receive (1) The cheque bearing No. 650220, drawn on ICICI Bank, (2) Notices exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendants, (3) Visiting card of the plaintiff, (4) Original complaint copy in CC. No: 7957/04, (5) Original video cassette containing the statement of the plaintiff, and (6) Copy of the complaint filed before CCB, Egmore, against the plaintiff for forgery and the news published in the paper regarding the complaint in CCB as additional documents. The suit has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,37,600/- with interest at 12% p.a. Pendin...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ramaiya Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2096
S. Nagamuthu, J.1. These 11 revision petitions have been filed challenging the awards made by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Sivaganga in M.C.O.P. Nos. 167 to 175, 177 and 183 of 2003 in so far as the awards relate to the direction contained in clause 5 of the decree that the insurance company, viz., respondent No. 1 herein shall be entitled to recover the award amounts from the petitioner after paying the same in accordance with award to the claimants.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 31-N 0289. On 15.4.2003, the said vehicle involved in an accident in which admittedly 30 persons travelled in the said vehicle at the time of accident and sustained injuries. Out of the said 30 persons, 18 have come forward with the claim petition in M.C.O.P. Nos. 167 to 175, 177 and 183 of 2003. Admittedly, the vehicle was covered by an insurance issued by the respondent No. 1 herein cover...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Highways and Rural Work Employees' Cooperative Thrift a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1109
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. W.A. No. 766 of 1998 has been preferred by a Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society, challenging the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in and by which, it was directed to pay its employee by name Ramadoss, his salary last drawn on the date of termination of service till the date of his superannuation, besides a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.2. W.A. No. 983 of 1998 has been filed by the said Ramadoss challenging the same order of the learned Single Judge in and by which the order of the Labour Court directing his reinstatement was set aside.3. Since both the appeals are arising out of the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court made in W.P. No. 15783 of 1995, they are decided by way of this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, the Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society is referred to as 'the Society' and the said Ramadoss is referred to as 'the employee'.4. The facts which give rise to the present appeals are as follows:The employee was wo...
Tag this Judgment!Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. the State Industries Promotion Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)9VST614(Mad)
ORDER1. The Government in the order second read above declared 105 taluks of this State as industrially backward for the purposes of grant of interest free sales tax loan, interest free sales tax deferral, state capital subsidy, etc.2. With a view to correct regional imbalances in the industrialisation in the State by giving further incentives to more backward areas, the Government direct that 30 taluks, from among the 105 industrially backward taluk be declared as industrially most backward taluks. The names of 30 taluks are annexed to this order.3. The Government direct that the new industries to be set up in the 30 most backward taluks ordered in para 2 above and also in the three industrial complexes of State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu at Pudukottai, Cuddalore and Manamadurai be eligible apart from other existing concessions for full waiver of sales tax dues for a period of five years upto a ceiling of the total investment made in fixed assets. Existing industri...
Tag this Judgment!Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: (2008)16VST578(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The prayer in the Writ Petition No. 8196 of 2001 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in its proceedings in T.A. No. 926/99, quash the order therein dated December 29, 2000 and further direct the second respondent to disputed transactions be exempted under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as stock transfers.2. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 8244 of 2001 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in its proceedings in T.A. No. 927/99, quash the order therein dated December 29, 2000 and further direct the deletion of penalty imposed.3. In these writ petitions, the petitioner put in issue the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the authorities below in respect of the turnover of Rs. 56,26,412 rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the turnover pertains to stock transfer and bringin...
Tag this Judgment!Palani K. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ612Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Writ petition is filed by one K. Palani, who was examined as M.W.1 in the proceedings before the Labour Court in I.D. 37 of 1998. The original dispute was raised by the second respondent against the third respondent regarding his non-employment under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act and the matter was pending before the Labour Court in I.D.No. 37 of 1998 and the third respondent examined the writ petitioner as 'witness'. The Labour Court in paragraph 23 held as follows:Admittedly, M.V.1 came to the Court and says that W.W.1 is his worker. Petitioner's grievance is that he was denied employment unjustly. However, to which there was no murmur from the mouth of M.W.1. Therefore, it follows that he was denied employment unjustly. In such circumstances, It is just and legal that he should be given employment by M.W.1 with back wages and other benefits. Thus, it would be apposite to direct M.W. 1 into his service with back wages and all other benefits.2. On tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »