Chennai Court March 2010 Judgments
C.N. Paramasivam and E.M.C. Palaniappan Vs. Sunrise Plaza, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioners have sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in MA. No. 90 of 2006.2. The facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows. The first respondent is a Partnership Firm and respondents 2 and 3 are its partners. The first respondent availed loan from the fourth respondent Bank to the limit of Rs. 90 lakhs on 9.9.1991. The respondents 2 and 3 also created equitable mortgage on their properties by depositing the title deeds for the said loan. There was default in repayment and for recovery, the fourth respondent herein filed Original Application in O.A. No. 238 of 1998 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai and it was re-numbered as O.A. No. 1098 of 2001.3. Respondents 1 to 3 were set exparte on 25.2.1999 and exparte Decree also came to be passed on 20.9.1999. The respondents 1 to 3 filed Application in I.A. No. 2240 of 1999 for se...
Tag this Judgment!S. Nirmala Vs. State by (Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent made in Memo No. 394/BDFGISSV/2009 directing the petitioner's husband Suresh to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 branding him as a Goonda.2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side and looked into all the materials available.3. It is not in controversy that on the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that he is involved in 12 cases namely (1) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 165/2009 under Section 379 IPC; (2) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 179/2009 under Section 379 IPC; (3) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 180/2009 under Section 379 IPC; (4) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 328/2009 under Section 379 IPC; (5) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 783/2009 under Section 379 IPC; (6) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 902/2009 under Section 379 IPC; (7) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 1017/2009 under Section 379 IPC; (8) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 1088/2009 under Section 379 IPC; (9) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 1116/2009 under Section 379 IPC; (10) D5 Marina PS Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Natarajan Vs. the Presiding Officer Labour Court and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the award passed by the first respondent/Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No. 357 of 1997, dated 11.5.2000, has filed the present writ petition. By the impugned award, the Labour Court rejected the claim made by the petitioner in assailing his order of termination passed by the second respondent/management.2. The writ petition was admitted on 6.7.2001. Though pending the writ petition the petitioner sought for interim stay and interim direction, the same were rejected by this Court.3. It is unnecessary to traverse into the merits of the misconduct leading to the termination of the petitioner. It is seen from the impugned award that the petitioner was held to be not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity, 'the Act'). The Labour Court found that the petitioner will not come within the term 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act, as he is employed in a supervisory capacity, drawing wage...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Appa Rao and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 14.07.2004, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1964 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. II, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,00,500/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent, The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Chennai-15 has filed the above appeal praying for the award to be scaled down.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 12.04.2000, at about 23.30 hours, the petitioner was riding his cycle from west to east in Barnabi road on the northern side of the road. When he was proceeding opposite to Arulmighu Bathala Ponniamman Koil, a Maruthi Van bearing registration No. TN04 E4173 came from behind him in a very high speed, rash and neglig...
Tag this Judgment!G. Robinson Vs. the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Inspector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 2288 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order dated 13.07.000 passed by the first respondent-Superintendent of Police and confirmed by the order of the second respondent dated 22.11.2000. By the impugned order the petitioner was visited the penalty of compulsory retirement.2. The Original Application was admitted on 28.03.2001. Pending the Original Application, an order of interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the interim stay was directed to be continued. The respondents did not take any steps to vacate the interim order. On the contrary, they had filed an application for fixing an early date. On notice from the Tribunal, a detailed reply affidavit was filed by the respondents.3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P. No. 2814 of 2007.4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as a Police Cons...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sivaji Vs. T.S. Ravindran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
ORDERC.T. Selvam, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 227 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Pondicherry. The case against the petitioner is that he has sold a property to the respondent in the year 1997. The property had been purchased by the petitioner in the year 1990. On certain interference with such property which was vacant land by one Selvarasu @ Sambandam the complainant found that such person claimed absolute title to the property by virtue of judgment and decree in O.S No. 410 of 1989, dated 14.09.2001 passed by the III Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appear on behalf of the respondent despite service.3. A reading of the the complaint shows that the same originally informed the position that 'the complainant' immediately contacted the accused and asked about such litigation that was fought between his Vendor Periyasamy (Vendor of the accused) and the said Selvarasu @...
Tag this Judgment!Shukla Dutta Roy, Rep. by Power of Agent Biplab Dutta Roy Vs. V. Moham ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
R. Mala, J.1. The Criminal Appeals have been filed by the complainants against the judgments of acquittal, dated 13.11.2002 and 5.1.2006 in C.C. Nos. 3726 and 3727 of 2001 respectively, on the file of the IInd Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Egmore, Chennai, whereby, the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act').2. The appellants have filed the complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent-accused. The case of the complainants, which is common in both the cases, is as follows:The appellants-complainants in both the cases are husband and wife. The appellants-complainants entered into a memorandum of agreement with the brother-in-law of the respondent-accused, on 9.12.1996 in respect of construction of a house and a supplementary agreement also came into existence. Since there was defect in service, the appellants-complainants have filed O.P. No. 32 of 1998 before t...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatesan Vs. the District Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Prohibition, restraining the respondent from conducting any enquiry pursuant to the notice dated 29.12.2006.2. The case of the petitioner is that one K. Krishnaswamy, grandfather of the petitioner executed a Will in favour of the petitioner and his brother by name Suryanarayana, in respect of the property at No. 14/7, I Floor, B-Block, Rajkamal Apartment, IV Trust Cross Street, Mandavelipakkam, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600028. Subsequently petitioner's brother Suryanarayana relinguished his 50% of his share in the property in favour of the petitioner by executing a release deed on 8.7.2002 and the same was registered as Document No. 2144 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, Chennai.3. The share of property of the petitioner's brother was valued at Rs. 10,000/-. Stamp duty of Rs. 400/- was paid and the document was also released. On 15.7.2005 a notice was issued by the respondent demanding R...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumari, Vs. Pappathi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 31.8.2009, made in I.A. No. 418 of 2009, in O.S. No. 154 of 2006, on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. 2. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition are the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No. 154 of 2006. The respondents had filed the said suit praying for partition of the suit schedule properties. After three of the plaintiffs had been examined during the trial in the suit, the petitioners had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A. No. 418 of 2009, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to issue summons to the first plaintiff to depose on behalf of the defendants in the suit. 3. The trial Court, by its order, dated 31.8.2009, had dismissed the application stating that there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, or in any other law for the Court to compel any party to be examined as a witness. The trial Court had further held that...
Tag this Judgment!The Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. the Joint C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Both the writ petitions were filed by the petitioner Management.2. In the first writ petition, challenge was to the order passed by the first respondent Appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short P.G. Act) dated 29.12.2009 made in PG. Appeal No. 45/99 affirming the order of the second respondent dated 18.12.1999 in P.G.36/98.3. The writ petition was admitted on 11.04.2000. pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay. Subsequently, when a vacate stay application being filed and when the matter came up on 20.09.2000, this Court recorded that the petitioner had already deposited the disputed amount namely Rs. 36,290.50 with the respondent. It was directed that the amount should be invested by the respondent in some approved security and the third respondent will be entitled to withdraw the interest once in six months.4. Thereafter, the same bank filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 39594 of 2002, challengin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »