Court : Chennai
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. W.P. Nos. 25915 to 25919 of 2009 are filed by the petitioners who are the employees of the Food Corporation of India. Incidentally, they are also members of the Food Corporation of India (South Zone) Employees Co-operative Society which is registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioners in these five writ petitions challenge a communication dated 24.11.2009 issued by the second respondent, General Manager, Regional Office of the Food Corporation of India, Chennai and another proceedings of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India dated 25.11.2009. The first order is an internal communication of the Food Corporation of India and the second order is not addressed to the petitioners and did not pertain to them.3. These writ petitions were admitted on 15.12.2009. Pending the writ petitions, in M.P. No. 3 of 2009, an interim stay was granted staying all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders. In M.P. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
For reasons recorded below, I reject the application of the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who has reduced the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation of excess quantity of polished marble slabs imported by the respondents herein and also reduced the penalty, and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself today with the consent of both sides, as the issue as to whether reduction in fine and penalty in such situation is warranted, stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Pune Vs Dipen Enterprises [2003 (160) ELT 632]. 2. I note that the reasoning of the lower appellate authority for reduction in both fine and penalty is the fact that differential duty involved on the goods is only Rs.75,743/-. No ground has been made out by the Revenue for enhancement. Further, in the decision cited supra, it has been held that for import of marginal excess quantity of marble (in the present case also, the excess is to the extent ...
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 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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 21.04.1997, made in M.C.O.P. No. 2814 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court No. V, Madras, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,04,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% 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/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner, V. Venkadasalam, is an Advocate of High Court, Madras and earning an income of Rs. 5,000/- per month. He was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. On 28.09.1994, the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TMS1383 and was proceeding from Royapettah to High Court and nearing the High Court entrance near north fort side roa...
Tag this Judgment!