Chennai Court January 2008 Judgments

K. Narayanareddy Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary to G ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)2MLJ582(NULL)

ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This writ petition is filed to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act I of 1994) issued in G.O. Ms. No. 3(D) 407 Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare dt. 18.6.1992 and G.O. Ms. No. 3(D) 352 Adi Dravidar tribal Welfare dt. 18.5.1995.2. The case of the writ petitioner is as follows:The writ petitioner owns 0.42.0 hectare in survey No. 88/ 1-A in Thirukanancheri village, Thirvallur Taluk, Chengalput District. The second respondent Special Tahsildar, initiated proceedings for the acquisition of petitioner's land and the lands of another for providing house sites to the Arunthathiar families of Thirukanancheri Village. The said proposal was approved by the first respondent in G.O. Ms. 3(D) No. 407 Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare dt. 18.6.1992. The said notification was published in Government Gazette dt. 1.7.1992. The petitioner sent his representation to the second respondent objecting to the proposed acquisition. According to t...

Dynasty Developers Private Limited, a Company Incorporated and Existin ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad119; 2008(2)ARBLR249(Madras); 2008(1)CTC580; (2008)2MLJ1

Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. These are appeals from an order passed by S.Rajeswaran, J. The question at issue is whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was at all necessary for filing an application before this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter for brevity's sake referred as to as the 'Act', where a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, but the rest has arisen outside.2. The facts are that respondents 1 to 3 are the majority shareholders of the fourth respondent-M/s. Gordon Woodrroffe Limited. The fourth respondent is the absolute owner of several immovable properties including the properties situate at Chennai. The fourth respondent, of which respondents 1 to 3 are the majority shareholders, being desirous of disposing of its immovable properties, floated a proposal in the form of an Information Memorandum in September, 2005 wherein the modality adopted for such disposal was by way of sale...

Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Fin ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(226)ELT696(Mad); 2008[12]STR775

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. T.S. Rajmohan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. S. Mani, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and have perused the records.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'] in O.A. No. 678 of 1999, the Union of India and two other subordinate authorities have filed the present writ petition. The first respondent was employed as Superintendent of Central Excise at Komarapalayam Range, Erode from 01.5.1995 to 11.7.1996. While discharging his duties as Range Officer, in respect of the monthly returns submitted by P.K.P.N. Spinning Mills Private Limited from July 1995 to February 1996, it was alleged that he failed to issue show cause notice for the short levy of duty required to be paid by the assessee on revision of prices for the sale from the depot and for the goods removed for own use for which the factory gat...

Mrs. Shobhana Radhakrishnan and anr. Vs. R. Krishnamoorthy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad103; 2008(2)CTC663

D. Murugesan, J.1. The Contempt Appeal is directed against the order dated 30-12 2002 passed in Contempt Application No. 481 of 2002.2. A brief resume of the facts leading to the present Contempt Appeal may be stated as follows:i) The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Contempt Appeal. The respondent filed a suit in C.S. No. 733 of 1997 before this Court and pending the said suit he also filed an application No. 791 of 1997 seeking for an order restraining both the appellants herein, their agents, their men and their servants from interfering with the free access to the terrace described in 'B' Schedule to the plaint. On 8-1-1998, learned single Judge passed the following order:Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 given an undertaking that his client will be available in the house in all reasonable hours and the keys to open the grill-door leading to the terrace is always kept by him and in case of any requirement, he would go and open the door for the benefit of the othe...

The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Special Commissioner and Secr ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)1MLJ817

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The State Transport was originally under the Transport Department of the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, in the year 1972, the State Government created Transport Corporations for various districts and transferred the assets and liabilities of the Transport Department to the respective Corporations. The service of the State Government employees, who were in the transport department were also transferred and placed under the respective Corporations, where they were posted. They were absorbed in their respective Corporations.The employees, who were under the State Government and were eligible, were entitled for pension from the State under the rules after their absorption in the corporation. A settlement was arrived with the corporation and separate provision for pension for the corporation employees were also made. Circulars were issued from time to time allowing the benefits. As certain benefits were limited to a class of employees by prescribing cut-off date,...

Tamil Nadu Health Development Forum Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the Gove ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)2MLJ12

ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition in public interest was preferred by petitioner for direction on respondents to ban manufacture and sale of 'Nimesulide' drug in any form. The petitioner claims to be a charitable trust and forum of social minded physicians, social workers, women organisations, industrialists, lawyers and like-minded individuals. This was formed as a forum for creating awareness among people, particularly women about prevention of diseases, environmental protection, nutrition, sanitation, family welfare, maternal and child care, rehabilitation, health, literacy, etc. The ultimate object is to ensure community participation in all activities and programmes aimed at promoting healthy community development.According to the petitioner, the drug 'Nimesulide' being produced and marketed all over the country by several companies lime Alembic, Panacca, Reddy's Laboratories, etc., it has harmful effect of causing liver and kidney failures.It is a non-steroidal, ant...

G. Deivasigamani and ors. Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)1MLJ1107(NULL)

R. Banumathi, J.1. An interesting question is involved in this appeal. By the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal has held that brother and sisters of deceased Vanniyaraj are not entitled to compensation, as they are not his dependants.2. Brief facts as set out in the claim petition are as follows:- On 07.12.1992 at about 1.55 p.m., the deceased boarded the Corporation bus TDN - 01 N 1530 at Tambaram bus depot and at that time, the bus driver has started the bus negligently, which resulted in collision with the standing PTC bus TN 01 N 1531, which caused fall of the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries to Vanniyaraj Vanniyaraj sustained fracture injuries in ribs, chest injuries and multiple injuries. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Madras, where he succumbed to the injuries on 08.12.1992.3. Alleging that death was due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver, wife of Vanniyaraj - Malliga has filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5,13,300/-. During the pendency of th...

G. Jayakumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Chief Engineer (Planning ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, almost similar prayer having been made and as common question of law is involved, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. In two Writ Petitions, namely W.P. Nos. 3826 and 19802 of 1999, the petitioner-Citizen Vice Club, represented by its President, has prayed for a declaration that Section 8A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.H. Act') read with Notification No. 530, New Delhi, 21.8.1998, issued by the respondent-Union of India, i.e. Ministry of Surface Transport (Road Wings), authorising levy of collection of fees by the respondent-M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited (for short, 'L & T')-- (i) for use of 'Aathu Paalam' Bridge across the River 'Noyyal' in Km.161/2 of N.H.47 in W.P. No. 3826 of 1999 and (ii) for use of part of National Highways i.e. Coimbatore by-pass starting from Km.141.0 of N.H.47 at Salem Bridge and re-joining N.H.47 at Km.171/200 at Palghat side in W.P....

The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation Vs. A. Michael Raj and the Co ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)2MLJ540

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in M.P. No. 2 of 2006 in W.P. No. 22967 of 2006 granting consequential final order at the time of admission itself by way of interim order has been assailed in this writ appeal.2. The 1st respondent herein filed writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the appellant in proceedings Na.Ka. No. 1586/2006/K.7 dated 30.06.2006, provisional seniority list for preparing panel of candidates for promotion as Head-master and quash the same and direct the appellant to promote the 1st respondent herein as Headmaster, Corporation High School with effect from 13.5.2006 based on the existing panel drawn by the appellants dated 10.8.2005 with all monetary and service benefits.3. The 1st respondent filed the said writ petition inter alia contending that he was working as a P.G. Assistant in Corporation, Boys Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore. The next avenue of promot...

V.i. Microo System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2008Mad232

ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund the life tax paid by the petitioner to the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 09 P 7450 and to adjust the same payable by the petitioner towards future years.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:The petitioner is the Managing Director of V.I. Micro System Private Limited Company, dealing with electronic computers, software etc. The petitioner has purchased Mahindra Van in September 1999 and paid life tax vide life tax token No. 09674 dated 29-9-1999 and paid Rs. 30,120/-. Subsequently, on 26-12-2000, the vehicle was converted as private Omni van and the petitioner was asked to pay annual tax and the petitioner paid the same and necessary endorsement also was made in the registration certificate book. After payment of annual tax for the converted vehicle, the petitioner requested the Regional Transport Officer Chennai West, the third respondent herein, to refund...