Chennai Court February 2008 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.
Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Board for Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas9(Mad)
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent (BIFR) made in BIFR Case No. 327 of 2000 dated July 27, 2005, confirmed by the second respondent (AAIFR) in Appeal No. 107 of 2005, dated October 12, 2006 and for consequential directions.3. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner is a State level institution, fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, incorporated on May 21, 1965, as a company, under the Companies Act, 1956, with a purpose of development and growth of the industrial undertakings in Tamil Nadu (hereinafter called as 'TIDCO').(b) The petitioner on December 31, 1992, entered with an agreement to the promoter, viz., K. Jagadeesh Reddy, for setting up 100 per cent, export oriented unit for the manufacture of 40.50 lakhs metres per annum of coarse cotton grey fabric at Mugalapalli village, Hosur taluk, as...
P. Jebac Angel MartIn and Etc. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3147
ORDERA. Selvam, J.1. These criminal revision cases have been filed against the Judgments passed in Calendar Case Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tirunelvell and in Criminal Appeal Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 of 2001 by the Additional Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin.2. The case of the prosecution in Calendar Case No. 57 of 1999 can be stated like thus;The first accused was served as Special Officer in E.E. Thiruchendur Co-operative Weaving Mills Employees' Co-operative Store, Nazreth. The second accused has served as writer. From 20-12-1993 to 1-11-1994 both the accused have colluded together and taken amount for purchasing groceries and cosmetics, and after purchasing groceries and cosmetics, they failed to remit balance amount of Rs. 49,550/- and both of them have defalcated the balance amount. Under the said circumstances, both the accused are said to have committed offences under Sections 409, 408, 477(a) read with...
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. A.T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2010ACJ77
S. Manikumar, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2000 in M.C.O.P. No. 366 of 1996 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Kancheepuram, the transport Corporation has preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts leading to the civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows:On 4.10.1995 about 12.45 noon, the respondent No. 1-claimant was driving a Fiat Padmini car bearing registration No. CAO 567, owned by A.T. Dinakar, respondent No. 3 herein, from Chennai towards Bangalore, on the extreme left side of the G.W.T. Road. Near Chinnaiyan Chathiram, a bus owned by the appellant transport Corporation, driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, unexpectedly came in the wrong direction and dashed against Fiat car. The respondent No. 1-claimant suffered injuries in the head, over the right eye, nasal bone fracture, injury near the left eyebrow, cheek and lost many teeth. Immediately, he was treated in Government Hospital, Kancheepuram and ...
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Division I) Ltd. Rep. by Its M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ69
R. Banumathi, J.1. Challenging the propriety of the Order of quantum of compensation awarded for the death of Jayaraman and Kalaivani, State Transport Corporation [STC, for short], has preferred these appeals. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in the claim petitions.2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows:- On 21.12.1994, at about 13.00 hours, the deceased Jayaraman was driving the Maruthi Van bearing Registration No. TN 37 A 9303 accompanied by his wife Kalaivani, Rangaraj, Palanisami, Mani @ Karuppusamy. While the Maruthi van was proceeding in Avanasi Road towards East keeping its left, the STC bus bearing Registration No. TN 37 N 0456, driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction dashed against the Maruti Van. Due to the impact, the Maruthi Van was dragged on the road and the said Jayaraman and four other occupants of the car died on the spot. Alleging that the accident was only ...
Adhikesavan Vs. Kalavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ268
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. The order passed in I.A. No. 1454 of 2007 in O.S. No. 367 of 2004 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Madhuranthakam is under challenge. The said petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1096 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree. Admittedly, the petitioner is the brother of the respondent. The respondent is the sister of the petitioner, who had filed a suit in O.S. No. 367 of 2004 for delivery of possession of her 1/2th share in the plaint schedule property basing her claim under a Will. The reasoning stated in the affidavit to the application in I.A. No. 1454 of 2007 for condoning the delay is that due to his illness, he could not contact his counsel and that on 16.6.2005, when the matter was posted for filing written statement, his counsel has failed to inform the date of hearing for filing written statement and hence he was set exparte on 16.6.2005.2. The learned Counsel appe...
P. Mani Alias P. Balasubramaniam Vs. P. Viswanathan (Deceased) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC831; (2008)4MLJ1199
M. Venugopal, J.1. O.S.A. No. 379 of 2001 is filed by the appellant/ plaintiff as against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Single Judge dated 24.01.2001 passed in T.O.S. No. 20 of 1990 in dismissing the suit with costs.2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed T.O.S. No. 20 of 1990 seeking to issue a probate in respect of the Will dated 17.09.1986 executed by Alamelu Ammal.3. After contest, the learned Single Judge has inter alia come to the conclusion that the Ex.P.1-Will dated 17.09.1986 is tainted with invalidating factors and should have come into existence under suspicious circumstances, which the plaintiff has not explained properly and held that the appellant/plaintiff thoroughly failed to prove that the said Will was executed by Alamelu Ammal and dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.01.2001 in T.O.S. No. 20 of 1990, the plaintiff has preferred O.S.A. No. 379 of 2001 as an appellant.4. According to ...
Kuttiammal and ors. Vs. the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sengaliamman T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ486
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1996 made in O.S. No. 153 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs 1 to 6 in the suit filed before the Trial Court.2. According to the appellants the suit temple Senkaliyamman Koil in Sembilivaram village, Ponneri Taluk, hereinafter referred as 'the Temple', belongs to their family. They have further stated that it is a private temple built up on the patta lands of the appellants, over 11 cents of land, in S. No. 32/4 and 16 cents in S. No. 29/3 in the Sembilivaram village. According to them, the founder of the temple was their ancestor who had formed the temple for the family worship and the same was not used by public, as a place of religious worship, as a matter of right. They have further stated that a dispute arose subsequently among the appellants 1 to 6 and the deceased seventh plaintiff and others regarding the hereditary trus...
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Venkatan and B.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1787; (2008)3MLJ781
R. Banumathi, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs. 78,827/- by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.2. Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: The claimant was working as cleaner in Tempo TN 29 1445 owned by the second respondent. On 15.05.1995, the tempo was driven by driver Mr. Ycob. When the vehicle was proceeding from Olapetty to Karagapalli, near Kollavi P.S., the driver applied break all of a sudden, as a result of which, the vehicle capsized. Claimant sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted for treatment in Government Qrs. Hospital, Dharmapuri and then shifted to Bangalore St. John's Medical College, Hospital. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained crush injury in left forearm and he suffered 100% disability. The claimant was drawing wages at Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and was aged 19 years at the time of accident...
Rengathan, Vs. Santhanapakiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ354
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 922/1984 against the petitioners 2 to 4 (appellants 2 to 4) and one Elayaperumal (4th Appellant) for declaration and recovery of possession of the property measuring to an extent of 1.08 Acre in Survey No. 127-B/10, Chinnaparur Village, Vridhachalam Taluk. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court and the first appeal in A.S. No. 55 of 1991 was dismissed by the Sub Court, Vridachalam and as against that, the present second appeal has been filed and the same was admitted on 06.12.1993. Pending the second appeal, the fourth appellant Elayaperumal died on 02.10.1998 leaving behind the respondents 2 and 3 herein as his legal heirs and according to the petitioners, the respondents 2 and 3 are the only legal representatives of the deceased fourth appellant. Since the respondents 2 and 3 were not brought on record in time, the appeal abatted as far as the deceased Elayaperumal (4th appellant) is concerned. After a dela...
K. Raghavendran and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ893
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are working as Superintendents under the Directorate of Collegiate Education, against the order dt. 21.12.2001 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1776 of 2001.2. Before the Tribunal, these petitioners sought for a direction to the Officials respondents to make necessary amendments in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Services, so as to include the post of Bursar in the Special Rules with retrospective effect from 31.3.1983 i.e. the date on which the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 202, Education, Science and Technology department dated 31.3.1983 and without providing rule of reservation to the said post.3. In the said G.O., the Government had notified various feeder categories, who were eligible to get appointment to the post of Bursar, which included posts coming from Treasuries and Accounts department, Secretariat department, Local Fund Accounts department, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »