Chennai Court September 2009 Judgments

Mrs.Aruna Narayanan Vs. the Air India Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Direc ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The unsuccessful claimant before the lower forum to her satisfaction is the appellant. 2. The appellant/complainant is a senior lecturer in nutrition having 13 years experience. By taking effective steps she attended 16th International Conference on Nutrition held in Montreal, Canada between 27.7.97 and 11.8.97. On invitation in order to attend the said conference, she traveled in ticket bearing No.098:4417351 flight No.189 owned and operated by the respondents/ opposite parties from Bombay to Toronto via London. The study materials, dresses, jewelleries were taken by her in VIP suitcase which was booked as baggage at Bombay while boarding the aircraft. After landing at Toronto on 27.7.97 to her shock she found the suitcase was missing. Without the materials and dresses, she was constrained to stay at Montreal and compelled to attend the conference also thereby she suffered not only loss but also mental agony, including humiliation. Her complaint at T...

K.N. Asokan Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and the Management ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ438Mad

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The workman, who has lost the case in I.D. No. 370 of 1991 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 29.12.1995 and for a direction against the second respondent to reinstate him in service with all back wages and attendant benefits.2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in 1985 in the second respondent/School Management as a Baker and was paid salary of Rs. 745/- per month and Rs. 150/- as winter allowance. According to the petitioner, in respect of service conditions certain conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Workers Union and while that was pending, on 12.4.1991, the petitioner and other workmen were terminated on the basis that the second respondent/School Management wanted to reorganize the work in the establishment. The petitioner has sent a letter to the second respondent to reconsider the decision and as the same was not considered, he raised a dispute be...

V. Vedhachalam Vs. A.K. Arumuga Mudaliar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1049

M. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to an order of the learned single Judge of this Court made in A. No. 3200 of 2005 in O.P. No. 199 of 2003, whereby the letters of administration originally granted in that original petition was revoked.2. The appeal came to be filed in the following circumstances:The appellant herein filed the original petition, seeking for the grant of a Letters of administration on the basis of a Will executed by one Viruthambal dated 04.12.1998. The appellant came forward alleging that Viruthambal died on 28.04.2002 and he is her sister's grand son and on her death, the said Will has come into force and since there is no other heir other than the appellant being the beneficiary under the Will after her death, the Letters of Administration was granted. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated. Pending the same, the respondent herein took out the instant application to revoke the Letters of Administration, stating that Viruthambal executed two other Wills dated 1...

The Director Handloom and Textiles, Chennai and Others Vs. Chandran

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties before the lower forum, having failed in their attempt to resist the claim of the respondents / complainants, successfully have come to this court as appellants. 2. The respondents / complainants approached the lower forum, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation etc., on the grounds that the opposite parties/ appellants have committed deficiency in service alleging that the wife of the 1st complainant and the mother of complainants 2 to 4 was the active member of 3rd opposite party society, that she was covered under the Savings and Security Schemes, that due to some ill health for some time she was unable to attend the society as an active member and died on 24.5.2002, that after the death of the member when the legal heirs the nominees have requested the benefits under the Savings and Security Scheme, the same was refused by the respondents as if she was removed from the active membership and therefore the de...

The Executive Engineer and Others Vs. Dr. C. Kamaraj

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The opposite party, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, have come to this commission, as appellant. 2. The complainant/ respondent, pursuant to the advertisement, appeared in the daily, offered to purchase the property in question, for a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- on 6.2.95. Accepting the offer a direction has been issued to deposit the balance 85% of the sale consideration, as per the tender condition. Thereafter, paying the said amount, possession was given on 10.5.95. But the opposite parties while handing over the building and the appurtenant land, did not handover the approved plan and layout scheme from the Town and Country Planning Department. Because of this inaction, the complainant was unable to mobilize fund, by offering this medicare centre, as collateral security. Therefore the complainant was unable to remit the balance amount in time, and in this way, he was directed to pay penal interest of Rs.34,380/-. By the belligerent conduct...

Manimaran Vs. Gandhimathi and

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ477

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is third party. The first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 32 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram for specific performance of contract on the strength of agreement for sale executed by the second respondent who is none other than mother of this petitioner. The suit was decreed and the first respondent levied execution proceedings and got sale deed executed in his favour through Court. Thereafter, he filed E.P. No. 76 of 2007 for delivery of the properties through Court. While the Court bailiff went to the suit property for delivery, this petitioner obstructed delivery and he filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 r/w Section 151 CPC requesting the Court to exclude 'B' Schedule property from the 'A' Schedule property which is the suit property. It is his claim that on the strength of an unregistered partition, the 'B' Schedule property fell to his share in the year 2002 and from the said period, he has been in possession of th...

Emgeeyar Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Its Managing Director Nirma ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1149

M. Chockalingam, J.1. These two appeals challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in O.A. No. 48 of 2009 in C.S. No. 1101 of 2008 and in O.A. No. 1231 of 2008 in C.S. No. 1100/2008 dismissing the said applications.2. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the learned Counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent.3. Pending the suit in C.S. No. 1100/2008 the appellant/plaintiff filed O.A. No. 1231/2008 for temporary injunction to restrain the sole defendant from dealing with the negative rights of the three Tamil feature films (1) Nadodi Mannan (2) Adimai Penn and (3) Ulagam Sutrum Valiban including all and every copyright viz., 16mm and TV rights, etc., for entire world and in any other dimension or in any other manner, while the appellant has filed O.A. No. 48/2009 an application for temporary injunction against the defendants therein in C.S. No. 1101/2008 whereby he sought a permanen...

Sri Sabhanayagar Temple Represented by Its Secretary, Podhu Dheekshadh ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1503

T. Raja, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 181 of 2009 is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 02.02.2009 made in writ petition No. 18248 of 2006. The other two appeals in Writ Appeals Nos. 182 and 183 of 2009 are filed against the orders of the learned single Judge impleading respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition by order dated 02.02.2009 made in M.P. No. 2 of 2006 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in writ petition No. 18248 of 2006.2. 'Iswara' as Lord Siva is generally worshipped in a particular form known as 'Linga'. The Word 'Linga' in Sanskrit means a symbol. If all forms in the creation were put together that would form an indefinable form which is symbolised by 'Linga'.3. The vedas reduce all forms to five constituent elements called the 'pancha mahabutas', viz., five great elements, they are 'Akasa-Space; Vayu-Air; Agni-Fire; Apah-Water and prithivi-Earth'. There are five temples in India where Lord Siva is invoked in each of the five elements. At Chidambaram temple, Lord Siva ...

Divisional Manager the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Naseema,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ855(NULL)

ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is second respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 672 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Vellore. The first respondent filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on the death of her husband Sultan Sheriff @ Babu in a road traffic accident reportedly happened on 27.4.2002 at 1.00 p.m. at Manickka Chettiar Street, Alamelurangapuram, Vellore. A case was registered in Cr. No. 161 of 2002 under Section 279, 338 and 304A IPC on the file of the Sathuvachari Police Station. The said claim petition was resisted by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company by filing counter and the Tribunal after enquiry, directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,89,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on 23.7.2004. There had been no appeal from the said award.2. After two years, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 516 of 2006, before the said Tribunal to review its award dated 23.7.2004. The grounds adduced there on are that th...

The Executive Committee Rep. by Its General Secretary Rev. Moses Jayak ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)8MLJ329

M. Chockalingam, J.1. These appeals challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in O.A. No. 492 of 2009, an application for interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's holding the office and discharging the functions of the Bishop in Madras, Madras Diocese, and in Application No. 2171/2009, an application for stay of the operation of the letter dated 30.4.2009 of the Moderator to the plaintiff.2.The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side.3.These appeals have arisen under the following circumstances:(a) One Laity Association of Church of South India (CSI) - Madras Diocese, represented by its General Secretary and Vice President, filed a suit in C.S. No. 295 of 2009 for declaration that the fifth defendant therein Rt. Rev. Dr. V. Devasagayam, cannot hold the post of Bishop of CSI, Madras Diocese, beyond 1.5.2009 and also for consequential reliefs along with the mandatory injunction to direct the defendants...