Chennai Court March 2007 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.
T.V. Kunjali Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Owning Southern Railway, Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ482; AIR2007Mad284; (2007)3MLJ929
K. Venkataraman, J.1. The claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Branch is the appellant before this Court. The appellant has filed the said Claim Application wherein he has stated that he has boarded West Coast Express Train No. 6627 at Chennai on 4.2.2000 in order to proceed to Badagara (Kerala). When the train reached the Salem Junction at about 6.10 p.m., the petitioner with a view to purchase refreshment from the mobile vendors, he was standing near the entrance of the compartment. At that time due to sudden start of the train with jerk and pushing of passengers, he lost control of the hold and accidentally slipped and fell between the platform and the train. Due to the said impact, his left hand was crushed and was amputated below elbow and he has also suffered grievous injuries abrasion and lacerated wound over the right thigh and right of fore head. He was sent to Government Medical College Hospital, Salem. He got discharged since the treatment was not satisfactor...
S. Rukmani and S. Prem Vs. R.B. Vasudev,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC191; (2007)6MLJ888
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The defendants are the Revision Petitioners before this Court, challenging the order of the trial Court dated 18.08.2006 made in I.A.No.592 of 2006 in O.S.No.187 of 2000.2. I.A.No. 592 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff permitting them to file additional documents and the trial Court allowed the application thereby permitting the plaintiffs to file the documents subject to proof and relevancy. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.08.2006 the above Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents and the Judgements referred to by them in support of their submissions.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the amendment to Order 13 and Order 7, additional documents should not have been received by the trial Court after the settlement of issues. He relied on the foll...
The Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Asst. Director General (Estt.), D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ25
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J1. In W.P.Nos. 2481 and 2628 of 2002, the petitioners are The Union of India represented by the Assistant Director General (Estt.), Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and the Principal/Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-600 002. In W.P.No. 11629 of 2002, the petitioners are the Union of India represented by the Principal Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-600 002 and the Head Record Officer, Airmail Sorting Division, Chennai-600 027.2. The challenge in all these Writ Petitions is to the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 20.7.2001 in O.A.No. 138 of 2001 and 209 of 2000 and dated 14.8.2001 in O.A.No. 457 of 2001 respectively. 3. The contesting respondents herein were all employed as substitutes in the place of Group-D employees as and when such employment arose by virtue of certain contingencies like leave, absence etc. The claim before the Tribunal by t...
Sridharan Vs. S. Natarajan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC45; (2007)3MLJ179
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Aggrieved by the Order made in R.C.A. No. 8/99 reversing the Order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 4/1997, landlord has preferred CRP No. 623/2001. Appellate Authority allowing the appeal filed by the Tenant and ordering deposit of rent is the subject matter of challenge in C.R.P. No. 624/2001.2. Revision Petitions arise on the following facts:The first Respondent Tenant took lease of 1.45 acres of land with building, at No. 41-A, Thenpathi Main Road, Kaivilancherry Vattam, Sirkali, in the year 1985, for a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-, for running a nursery school. Rs. 2,000/- was paid as advance.2.1. R.C. O.P. No. 7/1996:The first Respondent has filed R.C.O.P. No. 7/1996 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [for short, 'the Act']. It was his case that father of Revision Petitioner - Viswanatha Reddiar was originally receiving rents and he refused to receive rent and after issuing notice to Vis...
V.D.R. Impex Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST398(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed praying 1 for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the respondent pursuant to his proceedings in R.P. No. JJ 1/172/2002 dated July 31, 2003 and set aside the same as being invalid and illegal.2. The case of the petitioner is that whether the levy and demand of inter-est for belated payment of sales tax for the assessment year 1991-92 against the petitioner is correct. The petitioner purchased the disputed property from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, 'the TIIC') in April, 2001 in an auction sale conducted by the TIIC. In addition to the sale consideration, the petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as statutory sales tax due, which amount also the petitioner had paid to the respondent on April 17, 2001. Thereupon, there was a total silence on the part of the respondent and thereafter in the year 2002, a notice was iss...
Pushpa, Vs. Ravi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4747
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. This petition is filed, seeking for a direction to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners/A-party in STC.No.602 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.2. An occurrence took place in front of the residence of `A' party on 04.12.2003 and the `A' party petitioners have been assaulted by `B' party/respondents. On the report given by the petitioners, a case in Crime No. 167 of 2003 has been registered for an offence under Sections 323 and 294(b) IPC. While so, a report has been given by the respondent/B-party on 11.12.2003 for the occurrence, which had taken place on 04.12.2003, as if they have been assaulted by the petitioners/`A' party. The case has been taken on file by the 5th respondent in Crime No. 169 of 2003. On conclusion of the investigation, a final report has been filed for an offence punishable under Section 160 IPC and aggrieved against that the present petition has been filed before this Hon'ble Court to quash t...
M.M.T.A. Limited Represented by Its Deputy General Manager, R.S. Balas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: II(2007)BC376
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common Judgment rendered by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T. Madras in C.C. Nos. 5447/1995, 6331/95, 8726/1995 and 8727/1995 respectively. The complainant is the appellant herein in all the appeals. Both complainant and the accused are one and the same in all the appeals.2. The complainant M.M.T.A. Ltd preferred these private complaints under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaiants, the complainant would state that the transactions entered into between the complainant and the accused ie., to finance, the accused in connection with his export trade, as on 3.1.1995 a sum of Rs. 2,69,19,268 is due from the accused to the complainant and that after realising a sum of Rs. 1,35,45,3000, the balance inclusive of interest comes to Rs. 1,84,00,000/- and that to discharge the said subsisting debt, the accused had drawn four cheques in favou...
N. Prabu Raj S/O. R. Nithiyananthan, Vs. R. Sudharsanam S/O. Ramanatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ1130
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. In an Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act proceedings thereon, can the Plaintiff call upon the Applicant / Defendant to be examined on his / Plaintiff's side is the point falling for consideration in this Revision.2.1. For disposal of this Revision, brief narration of facts is necessitated: Petitioners / Plaintiffs have filed O.S. No. 244 of 2005 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu for Declaration and Delivery of possession and to cancel the Sale Deed dated 22.12.1967 and for Permanent Injunction in respect of property at Kottivakkam. The Suit was decreed exparte on 27.01.2006.2.2. Alleging that Court summons was not sent to him and that no proper service of summons upon him, Second Defendant filed Application to set aside exparte decree. There was a delay of 99 days in filing Petition to set aside the exparte decree passed against him on 27.01.2006. Hence, Second Defendant filed I.A. No. 184 of 2006 under Section 5 of t...
Damayanthi Kailasam Vs. Mrs. D.F. Philips,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC813; (2007)3MLJ331
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu in allowing the Interlocutory Applications filed by the defendants 1, 2 and 4, under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to receive additional written statement, these CRPs have been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. 2. For convenience, the pleadings in I.A. No. 1805 of 2005 will be taken up and the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the said application. The suit has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff as against the respondents herein for partition of the suit properties and to allot 1/6th share to her. The defendants filed written statements. Pending the suit, the first defendant filed the impugned Interlocutory Application to receive additional written statement. In the said application, the first defendant contended that the plaintiff has changed her attitude after filing of her original written statement and as there is no hope or sign of her ref...
Ellammal and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Collector, the T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)2MLJ1113
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiffs are appellants. The suit filed by the plaintiffs against the second defendant, Tahsildar, restraining him from proceeding further with the notice issued, under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905, marked as Ex.A.14, corresponding to Ex.B.7. The said suit was decreed by the trial court. However, the first appellate court has reversed the same by dismissing the suit, as against which, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, on the basis of purchase from various documents, namely, registered sale deed, executed on 05.01.1971, marked as Ex.A.4, in respect of 54 cents in S.No. 234/3 and 12 cents in S.No. 234/15. In the sale deed, dated 21.12.1972, marked as Ex.A.5, in respect of 34 cents in S.No. 234/3, apart from another sale deed, executed on 12.09.1975, marked as Ex.A.1, in respect of S.No. 234/3, relating to 0.7 cents of lands. The case of the plaintiffs is that the said property, which i...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »