Chennai Court August 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.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D. Rajagopal, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal challenging the Award dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal granting a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-as compensation in respect of an accident that took place on 17.5.2002.2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that at the time of the accident, the vehicle being Tourist Taxi vehicle, did not have a permit and therefore, they will not be held liable to pay compensation. Even otherwise, the lower court has awarded the compensation and permitted the insurance company to pay and recover which is also not acceptable to the appellant on the ground that only the owner would be liable to pay and not the insurance company, as it is statutory obligation that the vehicle should be plying in the road with necessary permit. As there is no permit at all, there may not be any liability on the insurance company. As far as quantum is concerned, in a case of injury, the multiplier theory itself is wrong and only if...
N. Ashik Ahamed Vs. the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
(The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent/ opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.74,950/- with 9% interest p.a, alongwith Rs.10000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to enhance the compensation ordered by the District Forum dt.19.9.2006 in CC No.236/2002.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant, not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, has filed this appeal, for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The appellant, who is the owner of a Fiat Uno Disel Car, bearing Registration No.TN-45-V 6669, had insured the said vehicle, with the opposite party, comprehensively for the period 25.10.00 24.10.01. On 28.11.00, when the complainant was driving vehicle, in order to save a motor cyclist, turned the vehicle, resulting accident, sustaining damage to the vehicle, for whic...
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Chairman Vs. Krishnasamy ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
(The 1st respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/2nd opposite party and 2nd Respondent / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.66580/- with interest and to pay Rs.50000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.2.2007 in O.P.No.45/2006.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent in this appeal, as complainant, approached the District Forum, seeking a direction against the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.66,580/-, being the amount incurred for obtaining duplicate passport, and for a further sum of Rs.50000/-, as compensation, for the mental agony, said to have been suffered by him, interalia contending, that he had taken overseas policy, which covers compensation for obtaining emergency travel documents, and fresh passport, that wh...
A.Veeraiya Perumal. Vs. the Director of Medical and Rural Health Servi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.2818 of 2000, seeking a direction to the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 22.02.2000 and 01.03.2000, so as to include his name in the panel for the year 1999-2000 in the appropriate place.2. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo, containing two charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, one for the irregularities in the purchase of Drugs and Medicines during the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 and another charge for an irregular purchase of surgical items during the year 1993-94 and 1994-95. Subsequently, the petitioner was also punished with a punishment of withholding of increment for a period of 6 moths without cumulative effect. Since the petitioner had suffered with a punishment passed under Rule 17(b), the name of the petitioner was not considered in the panel for promotion to the post of Juni...
M/S Metro Road Construction. Vs. the Superintending Engineer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1.Heard both sides.2. The epitome and the long and short of the matter would run thus:It appears the petitioner obtained an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whereupon, he filed the EP on the original side of this Court and this Court felt that the execution proceedings should be transferred to Villupuram Court within whose jurisdiction the immovable properties belonging to the respondent are situated. The Registry vide the letter dated 30.11.2009 sent a copy of the award dated 24.12.2008 along with a certificate of non satisfaction dated 26.11.2009 to the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram. Whereupon, EP was filed before the Principal District District, Villupuram, but the said EP was returned with the following remarks: "(1) Certified copy of E.P.2618/09 to be filed along with this E.P. (2) Cost of suit and cost of E.P. To be mentioned clearly.(3) Blanks to be filled up."3. In respect of the first return is concerned, the learned counsel for the petiti...
SarojA. Vs. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1. Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents.2. The petitioner had stated that she is the absolute owner of the property in S.No.175/232 of Ikkarai Thathapalli Village. A Well is situated in the petitioners land in S.Nos.168/9, 169 and 169/2 of Baguthampalayam Village. The water from the said Well is being used for agricultural purposes. A Track Rent Permit had been granted to the petitioner, by the authority concerned, to draw water from the Well, which is situated close to the Bhavani river, permitting the petitioner to use the percolated water from the Well, for agricultural purposes. The petitioner has been paying, periodically, the track rent, the water cess and the kist due from her. The petitioner had also been directed to pay an one time water cess, for the usage of the water percolated in the Well in question, from the Bhavani river.3. It had also been stated that the petitioner has been using the water from the Well in question, with...
M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Mrs.Pooja Manoj Singh.and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1. The Honble The Chief JusticeIn these two appeals the appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 4th September, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in M.C.O.P.No.4904 of 2003, whereby a sum of Rs.61,92,500/- has been awarded as compensation in a death case and held that both the appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.2. In C.M.A.No.1835 of 2007 the appellant is the insurer of the car namely., M/s.National Insurance Company Limited, Chennai whereas in C.M.A.No.1235 of 2008 the appellant is the owner of the bus namely., the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.3. The claimants/respondents filed a Claim Petition for the grant of compensation for the loss of life of one Manoj Singh caused in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants case was that on 14.08.2003 at about 16.30 hours when the deceased was traveling in a Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No.TN-02-D-8509 alon...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and ors. Vs. V.Dharmalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1.The defendants are the appellants, who filed this Second Appeal aggrieved over the decree and judgment dated 05.03.2001 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Erode, in A.S.No.231 of 2000, whereby the decree and judgment dated 12.09.2000 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Erode, in O.S.No.574 of 1999, were set aside.2. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.574 of 1999 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, against the appellants to grant a permanent injunction restraining them from installing or erecting the transformer abutting the suit properties, stating that the suit properties consisting of a terraced house and shops, absolutely belonged to the respondent/plaintiff by virtue of a partition dated 25.06.1969 among his brothers and on the immediate north of the suit properties, there is a Highway Road called as Sathi Road. The plaintiff is having a right of way on all points on the Highway Road to reach his properties and he...
C.Sakthivel. Vs. the Commissioner of Police,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1.This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records from the respondent pertaining to the impugned proceedings No.1605/TP2/2010-1 dated 28.07.2010, quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to convene demonstration on 30.07.2010 before the Memorial Hall, Chennai.2. According to the petitioner, he is the District Secretary of Bahujan Samaj Party, North Chennai; the organisation has been functioning under the Indian Constitution all over India; the Party has 21 MPs. in Lok Sabha and 17 MPs. in Rajya Sabha; it is the third major political party in Indian continent; the Party is recognised by the Election Commission of India as a National Party under the Representation of the People's Act,1951; it has been continuously fighting for socially underprivileged and marginalized people and scheduled caste and scheduled tribes through constitutional means and within the purview of...
S.Shanmugam. Vs. S.Vasudevan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-2010
1.Inveighing the order dated 07.12.2009 passed in E.A.Nos.260 and 261 of 2009 in E.P.No.117 of 2007 in O.S.No.262 of 1988 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, these civil revision petitions are focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two revisions as stood exposited from the records as well as from the submissions made by the learned counsel would run thus: The petitioner/decree holder filed E.A.Nos.260 and 261 of 2009 for police aid and break open lock respectively, so as to obtain delivery of possession of the property which was allotted in his favour in the final decree proceedings. While so, earlier the respondent Sundaram filed CRP Nos.1815 and 1816 of 2009 and in that this Court passed orders. Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the said order are extracted hereunder for ready reference: "3. During the course of hearing it is brought to the notice of this Court that Valliammal has since expired in the ye...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »