Chennai Court March 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S. Seeralathan Vs. N. Chandrasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
ORDERT. Sudanthiram, J.1. The petitioner herein is an accused in C.C. No. 4186 of 2007 against whom a private complaint has been filed by the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner herein had filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 2208 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, praying to send the cheque, which was marked as Ex.P.1, to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of the signature found in the cheque-Ex.P.1 with the specimen signature. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no counter was filed by the complainant for the petition filed by the petitioner. In spite of that, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. The learned C...
The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Division ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 10.08.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 2793 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. II, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,66,600/- 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/respondent, The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Division No. 1, Chennai-2 has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the said compensation amount granted by the Tribunal.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 25.04.2001, at about 21.15 hours, the victim alighted from Metropolitan Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No. TN 01 N1606, Route No. 56C, which was proceeding from south to north on the Thiruvottiyur High Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai at Ap...
Dr. N. Sivakumar Vs. the Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to entertain the application No. 1446 for admission to Post Graduate degree/Diploma/5 year M.C.(Neuro Surgery) courses in Government/Self Financing Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for the Academic Session 2010-11 sent on 27.01.2010 by the petitioner, acknowledged by the first respondent vide AR. No. 5489.2. The petitioner also prayed for an interim direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to take part in the competitive examination to be held on 21.02.2010 (Sunday) for selection to Post Graduate course.3. This Court, by interim order dated 19.02.2010, granted permission to the petitioner to write the competitive examination, subject to the result of the writ petition by specifically stating that the petitioner shall not claim any equity later only on the basis of permission granted by this Court to write the examination and the respon...
The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Ramani and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
M. Venugopal, J.1. The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Award dated 21.03.2007 in M.C.O.P. No. 150 of 2005 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Hosur, Dharmapuri District.2. The Tribunal/Learned Sub Judge, Hosur, Dharmapuri District in the Award dated 21.03.2007 in M.C.O.P. No. 150 of 2005 has resultantly awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,95,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum payable by the Appellant/Insurance Company to the Respondents 1 to 5/Claimants 1 to 5.3. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Tribunal/Learned Sub Judge, Hosur, Dharmapuri District in M.C.O.P. No. 150 of 2005 dated 21.03.2007 the Appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.4. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company, the Award passed by the Tribunal is against law, facts and evidence on record of the case and as a matter of fact, the Tribunal should have held that the accident was solely due to ra...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mr. B. Krishnamoorthy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/third respondent against the Award and Decree dated 10.10.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 739 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Sub court), Coimbatore, awarding a compensation amount of Rs. 5,19,218/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Sub court), Coimbatore. in M.C.O.P. No. 739 of 2004, the appellant/United India Insurance Corporation Limited, Salem has filed this appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:On 03.12.2002, at about 12.50 p.m., the petitioner was riding TVS 50 Motor Cycle bearing registration No. TN-38-7683 slowly, observing all traffic rules, on the Avinashi Road. When nearing the petrol Bunk, and Hope Co...
Dr. A. Bhagavathi Ammal Vs. the Secretary to Government Health and Fam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
ORDERB. Rajendran, J.1. The applicant is a Doctor by profession. She was working as Assistant Surgeon in the Head Quarters Hospital, Tuticorin. By proceedings of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Madras, the second respondent herein dated 08.02.1995, she was placed under Suspension on the ground that while attending two family welfare sterlisation operations, due to the carelessness and negligence on her part, two patients have died. A charge memo dated 17.07.1995 under Rule 17(b) was issued containing three charges. An oral enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The enquiry officer held that two charges are partially proved. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, the first respondent, by the impugned order dated 16.01.1998 passed an order removing the petitioner from service. When opinion was sought for from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Commission advised that the disciplinary proceedings taken against the delinquent officer may be re-star...
S. Anand Kumar Vs. A. Anandhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. In as much as the issues arising for consideration in both the civil revision petitions are one and the same, a common order is being passed.2. The civil revision petition in C.R.P. No. 1075 of 2010, has been filed praying that Court may be pleased to set aside the order, dated 9.3.2010 made in I.A. No. 1602 of 2010, in G.W.O.P. No. 2404 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai.3. The civil revision petition, in C.R.P. No. 1076 of 2010, has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order, dated 9.3.2010, made in I.A. No. 1603 of 2010, in G.W.O.P. No. 2404 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai.4. It has been stated that the petitioner had filed G.W.O.P. No. 2404 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, to appoint the petitioner as the Guardian of his daughter, A.Abinaya, to take care of her welfare and interest. He had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A. No. 3646 ...
M. Krishnasamy Vs. the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Commerc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the charge memo, dated 21.7.2007 framed by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore.2. The petitioner was working as a Sales Tax Collection Inspector attached to the Commercial Tax Office, Central Tiruppur. On 30.3.2005, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department made a sudden inspection and seized records including a sum of Rs. 6045/-. It transpires that the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the DVAC. However, the case of the petitioner was referred to an enquiry by the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Disciplinary Tribunal framed two charges. The first charge relating to the petitioner receiving Rs. 200/- each from several persons as illegal gratification to renew their respective registration certificates while collecting renewal fees. The second charge was that he was in possession of Rs. 6045/-, which has not been satisfactorily explained by him. The petitioner was also given a cop...
Rathinammal Vs. the Managing Director, Tamilnadu Housing Board and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are residents of Ariyalur. Their lands were acquired on behalf of the Housing Board for the purpose of providing Neighborhood Housing Scheme.2. Though the petitioners earlier challenged the acquisition proceedings, they were not successful and the acquisition proceedings have come to an end. Thereafter, the petitioners started making representations on the ground that notwithstanding the 4(1) notification issued during October 1980 and 5-A enquiry during 1981 and after making Section 6 declaration, the houses have not come up in the plot taken over by them and in some cases instead of building the houses, they are selling the developed lands whereas the land owners got very little compensation, but the Housing Board is making super profit on such acquisition. The petitioners moved this Court on an earlier occasion seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider their representations in re-conveying the lands. Thei...
Sakunthala and Vs. Viramani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners against the Award and Decree, dated 03.01.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 1182 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,02,000/- 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. Having not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellants/petitioners have filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:The petitioners are the mother and brother of the deceased. They have filed a claim petition stating that on 09.05.2002, at about 08.30 p.m. the deceased Jayaprakash was riding his TVS 50 motorcycle bearing registration No. TN27 8715 towards Junction in Omalur Main road. When he was nearing Kalpana Theatre, a Maruthi car bearing r...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »