Chennai Court February 2010 Judgments

K. Chinnusamy and ors. Vs. S.S. Dye Chem

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2010]155CompCas228(Mad)

C.T. Selvam, J.1. These petitions seek to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 567 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Erode in so far as the petitioners are concerned.2. C.C. No. 567 of 2004 is a case pending adjudication for alleged offences under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 18130 of 2005 are accused Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8, while the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 20867 of 2007 is the fifth accused in the case. The complaint case has been filed on the averments that the first accused-company by name M/s. Adhavan Processors P. Ltd., used to purchase dyes and chemicals from the respondent/complainant on credit for its textile processing and moneys were owing to the company in the course of such business transactions. The accused had acknowledged and confirmed the liability to the respondent/complainant in a sum of Rs. 27,61,963.25 based on their ac...

Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its Project Officer, ...

Court: Chennai

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The Government of Tamil Nadu received representations from Government Employees regarding their grievances with regard to the existing Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme, which was implemented by G.O.Ms. No. 18, Finance(Allowances) Department, dated 09.01.1992. Therefore, with a view to address the grievances, the Government decided to implement a new health insurance scheme by G.O.Ms. No. 430, Finance (Salaries) Department, dated 10.09.2007. One of the important features of this scheme was that it would be a cashless facility. The scheme enumerated the list of diseases/treatments and surgeries which would be covered and the scheme also notified the hospitals which would be covered by this Scheme. The beneficiaries were employees of the Government of Tamil Nadu, State Public Sector Undertakings, Local Bodies, State Government Universities and Statutory Boards under the control of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Though initially the scheme covered onl...

P. Gurunathan Vs. the Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,

Court: Chennai

ORDERR.S. Ramanathan, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner is working as Warden at Adi Dravidar Boys Hostel at Ramanathapuram. He was transferred to that post on mutual transfer, by proceedings, dated 23.06.2009 and in his place, the 3rd respondent was transferred. According to the petitioner, the transfer of staff in the respondent's Department is governed by various Government Orders and for the year 2003, the 1st respondent has issued G.O.Ms. No. 64, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 03.06.2009 for conducting general counseling as well as for mutual transfer. As per the said G.O, before conducting general counseling, the authorities have to decide the mutual transfer of employees on the basis of the request given by the employees and after completing the transfer on mutual basis, transfer on general counseling can be conducted. Therefore, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent jointly made request to the 2nd respondent for mutual transfer and that was also accepted...

G.R. Inbaraj Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to the ...

Court: Chennai

B. Rajendran, J.1. The writ appeal has been filed against R.A.(MD) No. 8 of 2007 in W.P. No. 4978 of 2005. Since the petitioner in W.P. No. 4978 of 2005 is dead, her husband filed an application to accept the cause title and cause title has been accepted vide Order dated 19.02.2008.2. Originally, the writ petitioner and various other petitioners have filed O.As before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking the benefit under G.O.Ms. No. 1381, Education Department, dated 05.10.1990. The Tribunal originally granted order in their favour. The operative portion of the order passed in that Original Application, in O.A. No. 587 of 1997 batch of cases, dated 20.03.2002, is as follows:1. The petitioners are Headmasters, promoted in the said post after 01.06.1988 in the schools run by Kallar Reclamation Department. Their claim is that they should be given Selection Grade and Special Grade after taking into the service as Secondary Grade Teachers before and after 01.06.1988 along with the...

K. Bharathi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary Rural D ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. W.P(MD). No. 13743 of 2009 is filed for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in D.O/683-1/2008, dated 04.12.2009 on the file of the District Collector/Chairman, Tsunami Project Implementation Unit Kanyakumari District, the third respondent herein and quash the same.2. W.P.(MD). No. 13744 of 2009 is filed for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in T1/259/2007, dated 27.11.2009 on the file of the District Collector/Chairman, Tsunami Project Implementation Unit Tirunelveli District, the third respondent herein and quash the same.3. W.P.(MD). No. 13745 of 2009 Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in D.O/683-3/2008, dated 04.12.2009 on the file of the District Collector/Chairman, Tsunami Project Implementation Unit Kanyakumari District, the third respondent herein an...

Brakes India Ltd. Represented by Power Agent/Subrogee, United India In ...

Court: Chennai

G. Rajasuria, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs as against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,78,094/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (being the commercial transaction) from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for costs.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this suit as stood exposited from the plaint would run thus:i) The first plaintiff entrusted certain automobile spare parts with the defendant, who is a public carrier within the meaning of the Carriers Act, 1865 at Polambakkam Cheyyar Taluk, Tamil Nadu for being transported to M/s. M.V. Axles Ltd., Jamshedpur on 30.05.2003. The goods were got insured by P1 (insured) with P2 (the insurer) - the Insurance Company.ii) It so happened that the goods were not received by the consignee; whereupon it turned out that the goods were not handed over by the defendant to the consignee. Thereupon Statutory notice Under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 was sent by the first plaintiff to...

C. Sengottuvel Vs. the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Technical E ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERR.S. Ramanathan, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner is working as Senior Lecturer in the second respondentinstitution and is also the captain for NCC 7th Battalion in Madurai. He was transferred by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 08.02.2008 to Central Polytechnic College, Chennai and the same was challenged by him, by filling W.P.(MD) No. 4414 of 2008 before this Court on the ground that the same was made without consulting the 5th respondent.3. According to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms. No. 239, Education and Science and Technology (V2) Department, dated 23.03.1995, the educational authorities are directed to consult the Director, NCC, while transferring the NCC part-time Officers employed in the Department from one institution to another and without consulting the 5th respondent, the order of transfer was passed and hence, it has to be quashed. This Honourable Court dismissed the said writ petition W.P.(MD) No. 44414 of 2008 holding that the petitioner was tra...

Sornalatha, Vs. Ramadhas,

Court: Chennai

ORDER R.S. Ramanathan, J.1. Heard both sides.2. O.S. No. 21 of 1996, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, was filed by the first respondent herein against his father and two brothers and his father Arumugam Pillai was the first defendant and his brother, Sree Easwaradhas was the 2nd defendant and Raghavadhas was the 3rd defendant in the suit. That suit was filed for partition of the first respondent's 1/4th share in the suit property and in that suit, a compromise was arrived at among the parties and as per the memo of compromise, the suit schedule item No. 19 in Survey No. 390/2, of an extent of 19.250 cents, with building thereon was allotted to the share of the 2nd defendant in the suit, namely Easwaradhas and the remaining extent of 65.750 cents in Survey No. 390/2 was allotted to the share of Raghavadhas, the 3rd defendant in that suit. A plan was also attached to the memorandum of compromise and in that plan, 19.250 cents in Survey No. 390/2 was marked as 'A plo...

R.Y. Sudhakar and Vs. the Inspector of Matriculation School,

Court: Chennai

ORDERR.S. Ramanathan, J.1. Heard both sides.2. These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are the husband and wife, challenged the order of transfer by which they were transferred from SDA School, Virudhunagar to SDA School, Kalpakkam as Teacher. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 5106 of 2009 has stated that he was appointed on 12.06.1979 as teacher in the Seventh-Day Adventist Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Thanjavur, which is run by the 2nd respondent and he was transferred to various schools in Tamil Nadu, which are run by the 2nd respondent and in the year 2003, he was transferred to the 4th respondent school at Virudhungar.3. According to him, he made some allegations against the Principal of the school that the Principal in connivance with the 3rd respondent, indulging in malpractices in the administration of the school and therefore, the 3rd respondent and the Principal of the school have got grudge against him and at the instance of the 3rd respondent, he...

P. James Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Governme ...

Court: Chennai

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate necessary and appropriate proceedings against the fourth respondent Society, i.e. Arcot Lutheran Church Society, by conducting an inspection and enquiry into the affairs of the Society and also to appoint a Special Officer to administer the affairs of the society until it is revived.2. When the matter came up on 29.10.2009, the petitioner was directed to give private notice to respondents 4 to 10. On behalf of fourth respondent, a counter affidavit, dated 30.11.2009 was filed together with a typed set of papers.3. The petitioner claims to be the member of R-4 Society. According to him, the Society was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The by-laws of the society provides for conducting elections and procedures for conduct of elections. It is stated that the society did not submit proper annual report to ...