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.
A. Vasudevan and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subbaia Gounder a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
M. Venugopal, J.1. The Appellants/ Respondents 1 and 2 have preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the award dated 30.11.2004 in M.C.O.P. No. 1031 of 1998 passed by the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-V), Coimbatore at Tiruppur. 2. The Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-V), Coimbatore, while passing an award, has granted a total sum of Rs. 12,57,000/- as compensation together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation and has directed the Appellants to pay the aforesaid compensation amount jointly and severally and ordered that 5% of the compensation amount shall be paid to each of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2/Claimants No. 1 and 2 and 45% of compensation amount shall be paid to each of Respondents No. 3 and 4/minor claimants by permitting the claimants to draw the interest once in six months and further directed that the compensation amount awarded ...
S. Satheeshkumar Vs. the Government of India Rep. by Its Secretary, Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This writ petition raises an important Constitutional question as to whether an Indian citizen has a right to seek legal assistance from the Government of India for appointment of an Advocate at Malaysia for initiating legal proceedings before the Malaysian Court or any judicial forum for the purpose of getting full workmen compensation from a Malaysian company.2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:The petitioner was a resident of Thevoor village, Nagapattinam. He went to Malaysia and worked in a company called LCL Furniture SDN BHD, fourth respondent. He worked as a Welder from 24.5.2006 to 24.5.2007. On 31.3.2007, he met with an accident during the course and arising out of his employment, which resulted in the fracture of his left leg. He was hospitalized at Malaysia from 31.3.2007 to 09.11.2007. After a major surgery was performed, he returned to India. Once again, he underwent another surgery at India followed by medical treatment. It had resulted i...
V. Thiraviam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERM. Jaichandren , J.1. It has been stated that the Government had issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in G.O. Ms. Nos. 1211 and 1212, dated 17.9.1991, proposing to acquire the petitioners' land, in Nagerkoil Village, for the purpose of forming a neighbourhood scheme, for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The proposal had been made at the instance of the second respondent Housing Board, which had intended to construct the houses. The petitioners' land situated at Nagerkoil village, Agadeeswaram, Kanyakumari District, were also subject to the acquisition proceedings. After the issuance of Section 4(1) notification, the first respondent had published Section 6 declaration, in G.O. Ms. Nos. 785, and 787, dated 23.11.1992. Pursuant to the Section 6 declaration, an award enquiry had been conducted. Thereafter, an award had been passed, including the petitioners' land. Though the award had been passed, the petitioners had not received the compensation f...
N. Sengodan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Inspector General an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 4690 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order, dated 31.5.2001, wherein and by which the first respondent Deputy Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. The Tribunal admitted the OA and by an order, dated 24.7.2001, granted an interim stay against the operation of the punishment of compulsory retirement. Subsequently, the interim stay came to be extended until further orders. Thanks to the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still continuing in service.2. It is stated that the petitioner is to retire by 31.3.2010. though the respondents filed an application under M.A. No. 8807 of 2001 for vacating the interim order, for the reasons best known to it, the Tribunal did not take up that MP. On notice from the Tribunal, they also filed a reply affidavit, dated 14.8.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter sto...
Dr. R. Subramanian Vs. the Anna University Represented by Its Registra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the order, dated 12.06.2007 passed by the first respondent university and a further order, dated 16.11.2009 and after setting aside those two orders, he seeks for reinstatement with suitable alternative employment with pay protection and all other consequential monetary and service benefits from the date on which he became unfit and unable to attend duty, i.e. on 28.1.1996.2. By the first impugned order, the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Professor in the department of Electronics Engineering at MIT Campus was informed that he was absenting from duty from 27.2.1996 without prior intimation and leave application. A specific charge was framed against him and he was removed from service by the Syndicate at its 119th Meeting held on 15.4.1998. He was also given a final order on 4.6.1998 with the information that he should file an appeal to the Chancellor within 60 days. Since the petitioner was not available, a ...
K. Arumugam, Vs. the Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court and the M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are workmen employed by the 2nd respondent. As against their non-employment, they raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After a failure report given by the Conciliation Officer, claim statements were filed before the 1st respondent Labour Court. The Labour Court entertained those claim statements as various industrial disputes and in the present case, the industrial disputes are treated as I.D. Nos. 471, 553, 694 and 507 of 1996.2. Subsequently, it transpires that the petitioners did not prosecute the disputes diligently and they were dismissed for want of prosecution by an order dated 28.2.2002. The petitioners never took any steps to set aside the ex parte order by invoking Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules. The petitioners thereafter came to file an application to set aside the ex parte award by filing interim applications only in the year 2008. In the affidavit filed in su...
Subara Bi @ Tharama Bi Vs. Bhasheeria,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
C.S. Karnan, J.1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 16.10.2006, made in M.C.O.P. No. 258 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pantruti, awarding a compensation of Rs. 59,568/- 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. Having not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for additional compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.3. The short facts of the case are as follows:The first petitioner was working as a supervisor in Aziz Exchange Company in Dubai and earning a sum of Rs. 14,000/- per month. He came to India in the month of June, 1999. He came to Bombay to get visa to go to Dubai, but was informed that he will get the visa only after a month. So, he boarded the first respondent's bus bearing registration No. ...
Rangasamy Special Officer, Veeranampalayam Milk Producers Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The writ petition was initially filed by the President of Veeranampalayam Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., Veeranampalayam Post, Paramathivelur Taluk, Namakkal District. The Society was aggrieved by the Award passed by the first respondent - Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No. 161 of 1995 dated 28.04.2000. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court directed restatement of the second second respondent with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits together with costs of Rs. 2000/-.2.The writ petition was admitted on 27.09.2000. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner Society deposits 50% of the amount and on such deposit, the Labour Court was directed to invest the amount in a nationalised bank into a fixed deposit for a period of five years.3. An application was taken out by the second respondent for a direction to pay the monthly wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19...
Saminathan @ Ayyasamy Vs. State by the Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
M. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Coimbatore made in S.C. No. 396 of 2006 whereby the accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(i) P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased Lakshmi. The deceased is the daughter of P.W.1 and P.W.4. The accused married Lakshmi and due to the wedlock, they have three children. P.W.2 is the first child. The accused often used to quarrel with his wife and P.W.1 used to take her daughter to his house and thereafter, he used to pacify her and sent her daughter back to matrimonial home. On the date of occurrence i.e., on 13.3.2005 at 3.30 p.m. the accused came to his house and asked his wife whether she had prepared mutton for lunch. She answered in the negative. Immediately, the...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd, Div ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2010
R. Banumathi, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation and quantum of compensation of Rs. 16,39,000/-, the Transport Corporation has filed this appeal.2. The brief facts are that on 30.08.2006 at about 17.45 hours when the deceased was proceeding to Tiruppur in his motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 39 1 7168, near Sangilipallam, the bus bearing Registration No. TN 33 N1677 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. In the accident, the deceased sustained injuries and he was taken to Government Hospital, Tiruppur. Thereafter, he was shifted to K.M.C.H. Hospital, where, he succumbed to injuries. A criminal case was registered in Crime No. 1392/2006 on the file of Tirupur South Police Station. The deceased was aged 23 years at the time of accident and he was running a Banian company and earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »