Court : Chennai
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!Court : Chennai
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!Court : Chennai
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!Court : Chennai
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!Court : Chennai
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!Court : Chennai
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to sanction Tamil Scholar Pension at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month considering the status of the petitioner, who is the widow of Late M. Chidambaram, who participated in the merger of Tamil areas with the State of Tamil Nadu based on the petitioner's representation dated 2.3.2007 with arrears of pension and continue to pay till the petitioner's life time.2. The petitioner is a widow, aged 70 years. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner's husband M. Chidambaram participated in the agitation launched by the late M.P. Sivagnanam and others during 1956, for the cause of merger of Tamil areas with the State of Tamil Nadu in particular for the merger of Tiruthani with the State of Tamil Nadu. Petitioner's husband was imprisoned in Central Prison, Chennai-3 from 24.9.1956 to 1.10.1956 and the jail extract to prove the petitioner's husband's jail suffering ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner is an Assistant working in the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. She has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption (for short 'DVAC'), Chennai dated 23.3.2010 in placing her under suspension in terms of Rule 17(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Though the Superintendent of Police who passed the order has been made as a party in her individual name but the office which held by her is not shown as a party to the Writ Petition.2. In the order of suspension, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, it was stated that when the petitioner was working as an Assistant in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, she contacted Commercial Tax Check-post officials at Pethikuppam in order to influence them to release a Lorry bearing Regn. No. MP-07 G4828 loaded with ceramic goo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 26.04.2007, made in M.C.O.P. No. 133 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. III, Vridhachalam, awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% 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 National Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 28.02.2005, at 10.00 a.m. when the (deceased) Muthuvel was proceeding on his cycle carefully from east to west on the Kozhiyur bridge at the Thittakudi-Vriddhachalam main road, near Kozhiyur bus stop, the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No. TN46 C5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
M. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Coimbatore, made in S.C. No. 113 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC, tried, found guilty of murder and awarded punishment of life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and default sentence while he was acquitted of the charge under Section 341 of IPC.2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased Muthulakshmi. P.W.2 is her husband. She was living with her husband at a place called Karathozhuvam at Udumalpet. P.W.1's mother got separated from her husband 15 years back, and she was living separately. She developed intimacy with the deceased. While it was continuing, one Subramani who used to lend money to the deceased, came to her house often. The accused suspected her conduct and fidelity.(b) On 27.12.2007, P.W.1 accompanied by her husband P.W.2, went to the h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. An Association called the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University SC/ST Employees' Welfare Association ('Association' in short) filed the writ petition to quash the advertisements calling for applications and to direct the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University ('University' in short) to calculate the exact number of backlog vacancies. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition holding that the University has maintained the communal reservation and it is open to the Association to make representations before filling up of future vacancies. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal has been filed.2. According to the Association, they made a representation on 30.6.2008 for filling up the backlog vacancies before regular recruitments are made for the post of Assistant Professors in the University, but without considering their representation, the University had issued a notification on 7.7.2008. So, the Association filed a writ petition and obtained an order of injunc...
Tag this Judgment!