Chennai Court April 2007 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Mahadevan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1373
S. Manikumar, J.1. The Insurance Company, who suffered a decree for compensation of Rs. 3,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim, has preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows;On 15.07.2003 about 4.30 pm., when the deceased Murugeswari and Selvarani were standing in the bus stop on Dindigul-Trichy main road, a lorry owned by the fourth respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against them and both of them died on the spot. Two separate claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased. As the claim petitions arose out of the same accident, both the petitions were taken up together, common evidence was let in and documents marked. As far as the claimants in the present appeal are concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim.3. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Cou...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ganesan Vs. Dr. S. Mahalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4236
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. Mrs. G. Thilagavathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking the relief of condoning the delay of 15 days in filing the Special Leave Petition to prefer the Criminal appeal against the order of acquittal dated 29-7-2005 made in C. C. No. 69 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakonam, acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the complainant in the case filed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of dishonouring the cheque to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner challenged the order of acquittal by preferring the appeal on 29-9-2005 and the same was re-turned on 30-9-2005 on the ground that the petitioner should file a special leave petiti...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Balakrishnan (Deceased) (B. Kasthuri and ors.) Vs. C. Shankar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ982
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Review petition arises against the order dated 02.03.2006 passed in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 878 of 2002, which itself was preferred against the order dated 08.04.2002 made in R.C.A. No. 853 of 1997 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.2. Originally R.C.O.P. No. 2229 of 1995 was filed before the Rent Controller (XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai, for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The Rent Controller has dismissed the eviction petition. That dismissal was on the ground that there was a bona fide denial of title. Subsequently, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that there was no bona fide dispute regarding the title and the balance of convenience rests with the landlord and therefore based upon such other matters, eviction was ordered. It is against the said order of R.C.A., the Civil revision petition was preferred by tenant Balakrishnan. The civil revision petition was dismissed on 02.03...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chinnasamy Vs. C. Duraisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4247
ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment, rendered in C.A.No. 86 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming the conviction and sentence, imposed in C.C.No. 254 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The case in C.C.No. 254 of 1998 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode was taken on file on the complaint given by the respondent / complainant, under Section 138 rule with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. As per the complaint, the revision petitioner / accused, had received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent / complainant on 02.01.1998 and issued a post dated cheque, dated 02.04.1998 of Karur Vysya Bank, Erode Branch, the same was sent by the respondent / complainant, for collection through Indian Overseas Bank, Erode Branch, but was dishonoured and returned with the note 'insufficient funds'. In support of h...
Tag this Judgment!Parasuraman Vs. State Rep by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC357
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No. 242 of 2000, on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.2. The appellant is the accused before the trial court, who has been found guilty under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The trial court has sentenced him to undergo six months RI, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under each sections, with default sentence.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The appellant / accused is the husband of the deceased Selvi, who died on 18.03.1997, by committing suicide. It is not in dispute that the appellant / accused married the deceased on 10.12.1996 and both were living together as husband and wife. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was subjected to cruelty, based on demanding dowry by the appellant / accused. As per the prosecution case, apart from being a drunkard, the appellant / accused, suspecting the fidelity of his wife, used to beat her and due to the harassm...
Tag this Judgment!Varadharajan Rep. by His Power Agent N. Ganapathy Vs. the Lieutenant G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1117
S. Palanivelu, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the Order passed in Writ petition No. 10033 of 1997 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 28.09.2001.2. The material facts shorn off unnecessary details for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:The Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in G.O.Ms. No. 71, Revenue Department, dated 24.10.1994, which was published in the Gazette of Pondicherry on 08.11.1994. It was declared that the lands belonging to one Nagamuthu Chettiar, son of Murugaiyan comprised in dry Survey Nos. 102/1A, 102/2B and 1025A/2, totally sprawling to an extent of 0.76.34 Hectares in Pillaiyarkuppam Village of Pahur Sub Taluk, are acquired for public purpose for the construction of Kirumampakkam Police station and staff quarters at Pillaiyarkuppam Revenue Village. It is also stated therein that in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition A...
Tag this Judgment!L. Subramania Reddy and ors. Vs. the Deputy Salt Commissioner and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ925
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioners in these writ petitions seek a direction to the second respondent to pay compensation to them in respect of the lands taken over by the second respondent, which had been leased out to the petitioners by the first respondent under registered Lease Deeds and covered under Salt manufacturing Licence No. 41, 15, 42 and 29 respectively.2. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions are common and the facts are also identical, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows.(a) The petitioners were granted lease by the first respondent by separate lease deeds for certain extent of lands in Athipattu village, Ponneri Taluk, for manufacture of salt. The period of lease was from 1.1.1988 to 31.12.2007 in W.P. Nos. 12721 to 12723/2000 and from 1.1.1988 to 8.10.2005 in W.P. No. 12795/2000. Petitioners were also granted licences for the manufacture of...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Rao Vs. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC302; (2007)5MLJ1214
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent/landlord has filed R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2002 against the petitioner herein before the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tambaram for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground of owner's occupation. By an order dated 26.9.2003, the above referred Rent Controller dismissed the said application filed by the respondent herein. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 33 of 2003 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (the Principal Subordinate Judge), Chengalpattu. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority referred to above by his order dated 5.11.2004 set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal thereby ordering the eviction of the petitioner herein. Challenging the said order, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/tenant.2. For the sake of...
Tag this Judgment!Athiyannan @ Selvaraj Vs. Kuppulakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC581
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order passed in C.M.P. No. 1169 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram dated 19.6.2006.2. Al and A2 have been charged under Sections 498A and 302, IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.3. The first respondent herein/first petitioner Kuppulakshmi had filed M.C. No. 1 of 2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram under Section 128 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance for her and also for her minor son Vijayakumar who is the second respondent herein. The Trial Court has ordered maintenance of Rs. 750 per mensem for each of the petitioners in M.C. No. 1 of 2003. Against the said award of maintenance, the respondent Athiyannan @ Selvaraj, the husband of the first petitioner Kuppulakshmi had filed a revision in C.R.P. No, 22 of 2004 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal who had modified the award of maintenance against both the respondents herein thereby reducing ...
Tag this Judgment!Network Fashions Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: (2009)21VST53(Mad)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This writ appeal is against the order of the learned single judge dated March 1, 2007 made in W. P. No. 2295 of 20061, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The learned judge also held that there was unexplained laches on the part of the petitioner for more than six years in challenging the order of assessment dated April 1, 1998.2. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner is on appeal. The appellant herein is an assessee on the file of the respondent herein under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. He is a dealer in textiles and ready-made garments. It is stated that out of the total taxable turnover of Rs. 71,72,212, the taxable turnover up to July 31, 1996 was Rs. 12,31,761 and the balance turnover of Rs. 59,40,431 related to the period from August 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997. For the assessment year 1996-97, the petitioner was assessed to tax on a taxable turnover of Rs. 71,72,212. The same was a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »