Chennai Court April 2008 Judgments

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Divisional Manager ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. The Opposite party in COP No.295/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows :- The complainant, a manufacturer of steel tubes, had taken fire insurance policy from the opposite party for their factories situate at Pondicherry for a period of one year from 28/5/2001 to 27/5/2002 for a sum of Rs.7,43,00,000/- paying an annual premium of Rs.1,00,055/- to the opposite party. On 10/5/2001 at around 4 pm strong wind coupled with storm and heavy rain took place in and around the factory area as a result of which more than 100 asbestos sheets were blown off from the roofing of the factory building and truss of the mill section was also badly damaged. There was inundation. The opposite party was duly intimated and the complainant filed two claims one for Rs.50,000/- and the other for Rs.2,50,000/-. The opposite party appointed M/s. Crystal Surveyor, Pondicherry, who investi...

The Senior Divisional Manager, Palam Station Road, Madurai and Another ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. {Lok Adalat} 1. The question for consideration in the appeal is whether the complainants husband committed suicide or it was a case of accident. It is seen from the records that the life assured died within 18 days from the date of commencement of the policy itself. There was an affidavit filed by the Village Administrative Officer stating that the insured committed suicide. The District Forum, however, found that this was not a case of suicide and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- payable with interest at 9% per annum together with a sum of Rs.500/- as costs. 2. Having gone through the materials on record, we took the view that the matter could be settled on non-standard basis. Accordingly, we suggested to the learned counsel for the insurance company to make an offer. The learned counsel took instructions and reported to us that the insurance company was prepared to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in full quits of the claim of the complainant against the opposite ...

K. Poruthammal, Vs. the Assistant Director, Drugs Control, Zone Iv,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ1151

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 02.09.2002 and the consequential licence issued on 02.09.2002 in respect of M/s.Balaji Medicals at No. 239/18-C Muthurenga Mudali Street, Tambaram West, Chennai 600 045.2. The petitioners are the owners of the premises bearing Door No. 18-C, Muthurenga Mudali Street, Tambaram West, Chennai 600 045, and the writ petition is filed by the petitioners through their Power Agent. The petitioners have purchased the above said property under sale deed dated 22.08.1997. Prior to their purchase, the third respondent was a tenant under the petitioners' vendor. In the premises, the third respondent was carrying on the business of pharmaceutical and druggist under the name and style, M/s.Balaji Medicals. After the purchase of property by the petitioners, they continued the tenancy with the third respondent and receiving rent at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month through the previous owner.2(a...

Tmt. Leelavathi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to G ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(3)CTC490; (2008)5MLJ1063

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 dated 06.09.1996 and 6 declaration dated 04.11.1997 in respect of lands of the petitioner in Survey No. 366 to an extent of 3.03.0 hectares and in S. No. 367 to an extent of 0.95.0 hectares in No. 12, Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore Taluk.2. According to the petitioner, the above said property is the ancestral property of her deceased father Karamadai Naicker and after his death, the petitioner and her sister entered a partition deed on 28.09.1992, according to which the petitioner is in possession of the above said lands, which are the subject matter of acquisition. 2(a). The further case of the petitioner is that she has developed the property into house sites by spending more than Rs. 2 lakhs and prepared a lay-out and gifted the same to the Kalapatti Panchayat Union by gift deed dated 17.12.1996 for public purposes. 2(b). The second respondent h...

Dynavision Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director P. Vijayakumar Reddy ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Mad)153; [2008]304ITR350(Mad)

ORDERP.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. W.P. No. 7060 of 2000 is filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the Third Member, namely, the second respondent in ITA No. 2943/MDS/1993 for the Assessment year 1990-91 on 3.12.99 and quash the same as being ultra vires the provisions of Section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the I.T. Act) and also opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently issue a Mandamus directing the present incumbent President of ITAT within a reasonable time as this Court may deem fit to refer the matter to a 3rd Member including himself or any other member nominated by him and request such 3rd Member or other members of the ITAT to decide on which of the point or points they agree which have already been referred to by the two differing Members as per the questions formulated by them under Section 255(4) on 22.10.97 and dispose o...

P. Arunodhayam and K. Kanniammal Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(3)CTC563; 2008(5)MhLj1523

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the resolution of the second respondent dated 21.7.2004 and the consequential order dated 30.5.2005 with a further direction to the second respondent to convey the land measuring 9 grounds and 1062 sq.ft. in S. No. 56/2, 57/2, 60/1 and 59/2, Villivakkam Village, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk to and in favour of the petitioners by receiving consideration at the rate of Rs. 6.11 lakhs per ground as per the assurance given by the respondents 1 to 4 and confirmed in resolution No. 4.04 dated 1.3.2001 passed by the second respondent and G.O.Ms. No. 49, dated 10.2.2004 issued by the first respondent within the stipulated time.3. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioners are owners of the lands comprised in S.Nos.57/1B and 58/2, Villivakkam Village, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, Block No. 32, presen...

Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and anr. Vs. V.N.V. Constru ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR604(Madras)

Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. These two OPs are preferred as against the award passed by the, arbitrators dated 07.11.2000, one at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board in Transfer OP No. 450 of 2006 under Sections 30 and 33 read with Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Order 43 Rules 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the O.S. Rules to set aside the said award dated 07.11.2000 made by the second and third respondents-arbitrators in respect of the claims made by the first respondent and Transfer OP No. 467 of 2006 is filed under Sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, by the contractor to direct the arbitrators, namely, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 therein, to file the original award dated 07.11.2000 into court along with all the connected papers and pass a decree in terms of the award. The status of the parties in OP No. 450 of 2006 is referred to for the purpose of considering the rival contentions.2. The TWAD Board challenges the award passed by the arbitrators on ...

Dr. S. Kalyana Raman Vs. Dr. S. Kalyana Raman

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The facts leading to the Revision Petition are as follows: - Time was given to the Opposite parties to enter appearance through counsel and also to file their version. However, they did not appear on the said date, there was no representation; they were called absent and set exparte. An application in CMP No.207/2007 came to be filed by the 2nd opposite party for setting aside the exparte order. This was strongly opposed. The District Forum allowed the application on condition that on payment of Rs.500/- to the complainant on or before a particular date the exparte order would stand set aside failing which the order would stand. Though according to the learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party/ revision petitioner the amount was paid to the learned counsel for the complainant on 20/9/2007, it was not brought to the notice of the District Forum with the result the order worked itself out and the District Forum held that the exparte order could not be set asid...

R. Gopi and ors. Vs. Saravanan Gopalan and M. Prabhakaran

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ928

ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order of this Court, dated 21.4.2006, made in W.P.M.P. No. 24902 of 2004 and W.V.M.P. No. 2025 of 2005 in W.P. No. 20685 of 2006. 2. It is stated that the first petitioner in the present petition is the first respondent in the writ petition in W.P. No. 20685 of 2006. 3. It is further stated that the Labour Court, Chennai, had computed the amount due to the petitioner in C.P. No. 372 of 2003. A stay order had been obtained by the Management in W.P.M.P. No. 24902 of 2004 in W.P. No. 20685 of 2006, filed before this Court challenging the award, dated 31.5.2004, passed in Claim Petition No. 372 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. 4. The Management had admitted that an amount of Rs. 5,08,000/- is due to 27 workers. By an order, dated 21.4.2006, this Court had directed the respondents to disburse the amo...

State Bank of Travancore Through Its Manager Madurai Vs. S. Ananda Raf ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J.(open court) 1. The appeal arises out of the ex-parte order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, in C.O.P.No.205/2003 on its file. The opposite party is the appellant herein. 2. The complaint came to be filed seeking return of certain gold ornaments and claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and loss of prestige. It would appear that on 07/08/2003 the opposite party/appellant was called absent and was set ex-parte and an ex-parte final order came to be passed on 29/09/2003. This is contrary to the decision of the National Commission in M/s. SIGNET CORPORATION Vs. COMMISSIONER, M.C.D. NEW DELHI and Ors [1997 (2) CPR 179]. The District Forum ought to have adjourned the matter for the filing of the version by the opposite party and the same not having been done, we have no alternative other than to set aside the ex-parte final order of the District Forum and remand the matter for consideration afresh, however subject to the opposite...