Chennai Court October 2008 Judgments

Saravana theatre, Represented by Its Partner, Vs. T. Ramalingam and or ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)8MLJ1045

ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the Order and Decretal Order, dated 28.04.2008 made in E.A. No. 15 of 2008 in E.P. No. 31 of 2005 in O.S. No. 172 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham.2. The petitioners are the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 in the E.A before the Executing Court. The first respondent herein/auction-purchaser has filed the Execution Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment. The Court below considering the facts and circumstances and the arguments advanced by both sides, has allowed the application. Aggrieved by which, the Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.3. The first respondent herein/auction-purchaser has sought permission to amend the schedule of property in attachment before Judgment Application as well as in the proclamation and sale certificate as detailed in the petition as directed by this Court in the order passed in C.R.P (NPD) No. 3930 of 2007. According to the f...

N. Santharaj and D. Paul Dinakaran Vs. the Director of Elementary Educ ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)8MLJ589

ORDERK. Kannan, J.1. Heard Mr. K. Rajkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.I. The Lis:2. The petitioners, in both the writ petitions have challenged the order of removal from their respective services as teachers whose qualifications in teacher training course from Karnataka Education Board were found to be not genuine.II. Summary of Facts:Entry into service on certificate issued by Karnataka Board:3. The facts required to be stated in certain detail to stay in focus to the relevant issues at hand are:. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11769/2004 claimed to have passed their SSLC examinations and joined the Private Teachers Training Institute called Sri Lakshmi Vidyalaya Teachers Training Institute, between the year 1979-1981. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11769 of 2004 states that he wrote the annual examination during March 1982 and certificate was issued on 24.12.1982 by the Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Educat...

Mrs. N. Vimala Rep. by Her Power Agent Mr. M. Nagarajan Vs. K. Krishna ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ241

ORDERV. Periya Karuppiah, J.1. This Civil Revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 22.01.2008 made in I.A. No. 1310 of 2007 in O.S. No. 16 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupur allowing the application filed under Order 8, Rule 9 of CPC by the defendant to receive the additional written statement.2. The case of the parties before the trial Court in brief is as follows:(a) According to the defendants the suit was for bare injunction. The plaintiff claimed title in respect of land comprised in S.F. No. 131 and also passage right over. The defendants filed their written statement stating that they purchased 17491 = square feet of land comprised in S.F. No. 131 of 3 of Neruperichal Village by virtue of sale deed dated 27.09.2000 from one Dhanalakshmi @ Danammal and they made improvement in the suit property. The plaintiff is not entitled to the extent mentioned in the suit schedule. The Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings had given a...

C. Malathy Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]308ITR105(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Originally, the following question of law was framed:Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without properly appreciating the facts and evidence produced for proving the entries in the books of account pertaining to the loan obtained from various creditors.2. Subsequently, it was redrafted and the following substantial question of law is raised for consideration.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in remitting the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer only for the limited purposes of examining the credit in the name of Smt. Sivagamasundari even after recording a finding that the Inspector's report on creditors was not made available for the appellant-assessee on the principles of natural justice.3. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee filed her return of income on July 16, 1998, pursuant to the notice under Section 148. The original asse...

A. Muthuramalingam Vs. the Engineering College (Pondicherry) Society R ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ910

ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 28.03.2008 on the file of the first Respondent whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 01.10.2007 imposing minor penalty was rejected on the ground that direction issued by the first Respondent for return of the equipment as a condition precedent for consideration of the appeal was not complied with by the petitioner.2. Originally, challenge in the Writ Petition was in respect of the order dated 26.12.2007 directing the petitioner to surrender all the equipments which were in his custody for the purpose of taking up his appeal on merits. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the very appeal was dismissed as per order dated 28.03.2008 for non-compliance of the earlier direction and as such, the petitioner has amended the prayer to incorporate an additional prayer to quash the final order dated 28.03.2008.3. Factual matrix necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition ...

Sivaramachandran M. Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ64Mad

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioner seek writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the respondent removing the petitioner from service and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary and service benefits.2. Brief facts which led to the filing are as follows:(i) Petitioner joined the service of respondent/Corporation as Bill Collector in March 1974. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from August 10, 2000. Therefore, a memo dated August 25, 2000 was issued to him, seeking his explanation for the unauthorised absent for long time. Even after the receipt of this memo, there was no response from the petitioner. After a lapse of more than ten months, by his representation dated June 29, 2001, he had requested for sanction of medical leave for the period between October 19, 2000 to July 10, 2001.(ii) A charge memo dated December 12, 2001 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 8(2) of the Coimbatore Corporation Service (Discipline and Appeal)...

The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Royapuram, Chennai ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. {Open Court } 1. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. The complaint was filed by one Sokalchand, since deceased as against the opposite parties challenging their action in repudiating the claim made by him with regard to the medical expenses incurred. According to the complainant, the insured has taken the policy, wherein, all the details are furnished including diabetes and later on when he has incurred expenditure for hospitalization, the same was repudiated. Hence, the complaint is preferred before the District Forum. 2. The opposite parties/appellants resisted the complaint by contending that there was suppression of material facts particularly in the policy, the period of pre-existing disease viz., the diabetes was indicated as if the insured was suffering from the said disease for a period of 5-years only even though, as per subsequent investigation, the insured was suffering from diabetes for m...

Mrs. Divya J. Dolia and Mrs. Beena K. Dolia Vs. the Secretary Governme ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ883

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioners, the former is for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' possession of the properties to an extent of 2.06 Acres along with industrial building comprised in Survey No. 1542/1A (0.62 acres); Survey No. 1542/1B (0.24 acres); and Survey No. 1542/3 (1.20 acres) in Sriperumpudur village, VRP Chatram, Bangalore Trunk Road, Sriperumpudur taluk except in accordance with the procedure envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the latter is filed challenging the award passed by the second respondent in Award No. 3/99, dated 29.11.1999 and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the encumbrance created pursuant to the Award No. 3/99 including the allotment order given to the respondents 5 and 6 or any lis made on the petitioners' properties.2. In the writ petitions, while explaining survey number and extent of the properties, the petitioners have chosen to state...

The Commissioner Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri Vs. K. Muthukri ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the 3rd opposite party, 1st respondent is the complainant, respondents 2 and 3 are the opposite parties 1 and 2 before the District Forum. 2. The above appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum in allowing the complaint filed by the complainant. 3. The appeal is filed by raising a main contention to the effect that the complaint does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the dispute of the complainant is arising out of the service conditions and the dispute raised by him is for the refund of the provident fund amount, after his retirement. 4. The District Forum has allowed the complaint by holding that there is deficiency on the part of the appellant and accordingly passed the order as directed therein. 5. It is seen from the records that the complainant / 1st respondent was an employee in the appellants department, had retired as early as in the year 2001 and he has been agitating for ...

The Joint Registrar TuticorIn District Central Co-operative Bank, Etta ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The main ground raised in the above appeal is to the effect that the complainant shall avail remedies only by approaching the authorities prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The law is already settled by this Commission by rejecting the similar contentions in FA.Nos.634/2006 to 636/2006 dt.15.11.2007. By following the above principles this appeal is also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost....