Chennai Court December 2008 Judgments

S.H. Vijayanthi Rep. by S.K. Harindranath and Another Vs. A.B. Anantha ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

COMMON ORDER N. KANNADASAN J. 1. In both the matters, a common question is involved as to the extent of right of Decree Holder to proceed as against the legal heirs of the Judgment Debtors. 2. Sec.25 and 27 are the provisions available in the Consumer Protection Act, which are in the nature of Execution Proceedings, towards the enforcement of the order of the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. Sec. 25 visualize the enforcement of such order by a civil process, as if they were a decree or order made by the Court of law. Sec.27 confers a quasi criminal sanction in the enforcement of the orders by way of punishment with imprisonment or imposition of monetary penalties. 3. We have come across in many cases, the judgment debtors though they are in a position to pay the decretal amount, but still they delay the executions by filing frivolous objections. It is axiomatic that in India the real trouble of a litigant starts after he obtains a dec...

K.V. Sridharan and S. Ragupathy Vs. S. Sundaramoorthy and the Principa ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ145Mad

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The writ petition, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed by the Circle Secretary, All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C', Tamil Nadu Circle Branch, seeking to impugn an order dated 16.10.2008 and also for approval of the list of Office Bearers elected on 21.3.2008 as submitted by the outgoing President and Secretary and to pass such further or other orders.2. It is clear from the tenor of the prayer made in the writ petition that the dispute is over the election of the Office Bearers of All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C' (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Union'). The question which is of some relevance in this case is whether in respect of disputes relating to election of such Employees' Union a writ petition can be filed.3. Admittedly, the said Union is a Registered Trade Union. Once a trade union is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, it becomes a body corporate under Section 13 of th...

Management, Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Kandasami

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ113Mad

P. Murgesen, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai) dated April 25, 2002 in V.T.C. No. 221/2001.2. The respondent was a worker employed by the appellant herein, as Senior Earth Equipment Operator. He drove the 'Terrex' from Alangulam to Virudhunagar to unload the coal from railway wagons into lorries. While he was driving the terrex near Kumaralingapuram, in order to give way to a bus he turned it to the left side of the road, due to which the vehicle toppled down and in the accident, he sustained grievous injuries in his leg.3. The injured claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,58,340/-before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'). Before the Commissioner, P.W.1 and R.W.1 were examined and Exhibit A-1 to A-8, Exhibit R-1 and R-2 were marked. On consideration of the e...

Dr. H.B.N. Shetty Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary Revenu ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ931

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the Order of the Respondent in proceedings Lr. No. 52365/LR.I(1)/98-11 dated 8.3.2000 and direct the Respondent to pay the Petitioner the gratuity amount of Rs. 88,775/- representing 5 months pay together with interest at 18% p.a. from 01.11.1995.2. Brief facts in a nutshell are as follows:(i) The Petitioner joined the Indian Administrative Service and was allotted to Tamil Nadu and he worked in various capacities and he retired from service in April 1990. After the Constitution of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, on 01.11.1990, the Petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal. After putting in five years of service, the Petitioner retired from the position of vice-chairman on 30.10.1995 AN.(ii) Since, the Petitioner was not paid the gratuity, he made a representation dated 24.09.1998 to the Respondent, requesting for award of gratuity in accordance with law. The Responden...

R.K. Herbals Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Deputy Commissioner (C ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)24VST373(Mad)

ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The assessee, inter alia, manufactures herbal shikakai powder. For the assessment year 1996-1997, additional sales tax at 2.25% on the taxable turnover as well as penalty were levied from the assessee. Against that, an appeal was filed. The question was whether the levy of additional sales tax at 2.25 % and the levy of penalty was sustainable. The appeal was partly modified and partly allowed. Before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee filed a petition to raise the following additional grounds:1. The order of the lower authority is wrong and illegal imposing sales tax on sale of herbal shikakai power as cosmetic item.2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Authority failed to see that unless the goods are specifically enumerated in the schedule, it cannot be classified as a specified goods as only a residuary item.3. Even in common parlance and trade circle, herbal shikakai powder is not treated as shampoo or cosmetic.The Sales Ta...

Indian Network for People Living with Hiv/Aids, Rep. by Its President ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Both the petitioners in this writ petition are registered societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and they are providing support to people living with HIV/AIDS (herein after referred to as 'PLHIV'). The petitioners try to lend support to PLHIV in critical areas such as access to medicine and treatment and also for removal of discrimination facing PLHIV in Indian society. Members of the petitioner organizations are citizens of India.2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, the 4th respondent herein, is a pharmaceutical company registered in Switzerland having its office at 124, Grenzacherstrasse CH 4200, Basle, Switzerland. It filed a Patent Application titled '-(2-Amino-1, 6-Dihydro-6-oxopurin- 9-yl)-methoxy-1,3-propanediol Derivative', which was allocated No. 959/MAS/1995, for a patent relating to Valganciclovir, which is a drug used to treat CMC retinitis. The 4th respondent's Patent Application No. 959/MAS/1995 was filed on 27.07.1995, and the 2nd res...

Venkatesan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1024

M. Chockalingam, J.1. C.A. No. 399 of 2008 challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No. III, Poonamallee, made in S.C. No. 28 of 2008 whereby the appellant shown as A-1 was found guilty under Section 302 of IPC while A-2 though charged under Section 302 read with 109 of IPC, died pending trial.2. The trial Court has sought for confirmation of the death penalty awarded to the appellant.3. Both the referred trial and the appeal at the instance of A-1 in S.C. No. 28 of 2008 are taken up for consideration together.4. Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 Sheeba Elizabeth, a resident of Krishnapuram, Ambattur, is running an orphanage. The deceased Rebecca, a child aged 9, was doing her 4th Standard at the time of occurrence. The deceased was the daughter of P.W.1, while P.W.4 is her minor son. She was carrying on the orphans' home in the ground floor while she was living with her children in the first floor. A-2...

M. Thangamuthu Vs. M. Chandra and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ152

ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the election petition under Section 81 read with Sections 5(a), 100(1)(a) and 125(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 seeking a declaration that the election of the first respondent herein/returned candidate from No. 209, Rajapalayam (SC) Assembly Constituency is void and to declare the petitioner or other eligible candidate as duly elected as a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from the said Constituency in the election held on 8.5.2006.2. According to the election petitioner, nominations were called for from the candidates for the 13th Assembly Election in the State of Tamil Nadu and he filed his nomination as an independent candidate in No. 209, Rajapalayam (SC) Assembly Constituency and the nominations were opened on 21.4.2006 and after scrutiny, there were 13 candidates in the fray in the above Constituency and the election petitioner was allotted 'Finger Ring' symbol. It is further stated by the election pet...

T. Ramamurthy Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Trans. Corpn. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009ACJ2172

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Appellant whose right leg was amputated up to knee and whose right hand was paralysed consequent to the accident which took place on 27.4.1997 and who was awarded compensation of Rs. 3,06,000 has filed this appeal for enhancement.2. We have heard the counsel for both sides. Though the respondent No. 3 was served, he has not entered appearance.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant also pointed out to the exhibit, which is the photograph of the claimant and from the photograph the disability suffered by the claimant on account of accident is clear.4. In K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. : 2008 ACJ 2039 (SC), the Supreme Court while dealing with a workman of a tanker lorry who suffered mutation of his right leg up to knee held that fixing the disability at 100 per cent and also loss of earning capacity at that rate was correct. Following the same, in this case also, we fix the loss of earning capacity and percentage of disability at 100 per cent.5. T...

R. Malaikani, Honey Bee Grower, Muhavoor Vs. the Post Master

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The Appellant is the complainant and Respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The complainant has approached the before District Forum alleging deficiency that the letter sent by him on 14.10.2004 was not delivered to the addressee namely the District Registrar of Society. 3. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint wherein it is held that the complainant has not sent any letter dated 13.10.2004, but only a letter which was sent on 27.07.2004 in receipt No.6859 was actually delivered to the addressee. 4. The complainant appeared in person and advanced his argument. In the course of arguments, he has produced a postal receipt dated 14.10.2004 bearing receipt No.6743. Even though the opposite party contended that as per Ex.B4 which are the details of the registered articles on the said date do not discloses the above Serial No.6743 having been registered by any individual, the fact remains that the District Forum has not re...