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.
C. Kuppusamy. Vs. Sri.Elumalai, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 9th April, 2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu in M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2005 on the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant which was allowed in part holding that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- only under No-Fault Liability.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:-The claimant filed the aforementioned claim petition for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The appellants case was that on 27.7.2004 at about 9.00 a.m. while he was waiting at the bus stop, on the western side of the G.S.T.Road, the bus bearing Reg.No.TN-01-N-3399 belonging to the second respondent came from Guduvanchery and stopped at Perungalathur Bus Stop for collecting the passengers. The appellant tried to board the bus, but, at that time, all of a sudden the driver of the bus drove the vehicle rashly without seeing the rear view mirror, as a result of which the appel...
M/S.New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs. K.Krishnan, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2007 made in OP No.1038 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Namakkal.2. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the compensation of Rs.3,47,2000/- awarded by the tribunal in respect of a death of son of the petitioners who was aged 24 years at the time of accident and working as a tinkering contractor. The Insurance company initially disputed the award both on the liability and as well as the quantum, they would only contend that the deceased was the driver of the motor cycle and the accident took place due to the overtaking the lorry by the deceased and in that process the deceased went to the wrong side of the road and was dashed by the bus coming from the opposite direction and died in the accident. Therefore, the driver of the bus cannot be held liable for the accident. As far as the quantum is concerned, they would only ...
R.Radhakrishnan. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. The petitioner-R.Radhakrishnan, filed the present Writ Petition (Originally O.A. No.1370 of 2000 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai), seeking to quash the order of dismissal from service, passed against him by the respondent in his proceedings vide Na.Ka.A1/6900/97, dated 21.07.1999, and to issue a consequential direction for reinstatement, etc.2. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by outlining the factual scenario, submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) on 26.04.1984 and posted at Kachirpalayam Village, Vrithachalam Taluk, South Arcot District. On transfer, he served at various places and, finally, he was posted at Pazhayapattinam Village, Vrithachalam Taluk, on 13.06.1994, with an additional charge of Kotteri Village and Mummudichozhagan Village. While serving there, he was placed under Suspension, by order dated 29.10.1997, alleging that he had misappropriated the land tax colle...
Sree Aravindh Steel Limited, Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company. It is engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots. The petitioner industry was established in Plot No.D-38, Industrial Estate, Thuvakudi in Trichirapalli District in the year 1975. The said industry had high tension electricity service connection in HT.SC.No.63 and the sanctioned quantity of electricity for consumption initially was 750 KVA. It was increased to 4000 KVA on 31.12.1984. Again from 29.07.1994 it was reduced to 1900 KVA.2. with a view to encourage the setting up of new industries in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Government had given HT Tariff-I, Tariff Concession for new industrial undertakings. In pursuance of new industrial policy announced by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 20.01.1992, the said tariff concession applicable for a new industrial undertaking was made available for any expansion unit of the main industry irrespective of its location but availing separate service under this tariff. Accordingly, the Government issu...
C.E.Suryanarayan, and anr. Vs. N.Santhakumari, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. Animadverting upon the order and decreetal order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chingleput in I.A.No.64 of 2009 in A.S.No.16 of 2009 against O.S.No.344 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed by defendants 1 and 2.2. Heard both sides.3. The gist and kernel, the nitty-gritty of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (a) The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the suit O.S.No.344 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs: - to declare that the sale deed dated 21.06.2006 under Doc.No.5442 of 2006 effected with the Registrar of assurance, Thiruporur by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void and - for costs.(b) The matter was contested. Ultimately the court decreed the suit as against which, the defendants/revision petitioners herein preferred appeal. They also filed an application in I.A.No.64 of 2009 seeking stay of the operation of the dec...
G.SwarnalathA. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court one Mrs.Swarnalatha has brought forth this application for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging that her husband Arunkumar, a real estate broker was taken by the 2nd respondent into the custody for interrogation purpose on 23.11.2009 at 2.00 p.m. but she was not informed as to the grounds of arrest and the detenu was tortured by the second and third respondents without producing him before any Court of law and the telegraphic message sent by her on the very day to the first repondent was of no avail and that the illegal detention, following the torture was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. After taking the application on file, notice was ordered to the State. The said writ application was countered by the State stating that the case was actually registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Avadi Police Station on 30.03.2009 in Crime No.242 of 2009 for the offence under section 380 I.P.C. On 29.3.2009, a case came...
Dr.V.Sankaran Vs. the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. The petitioner herein-Dr.V.Sankaran, filed O.A. No.10452 of 1998 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai (later converted as the present Writ Petition), seeking to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to proceedings in G.O. (D) No.107, Health and Family Welfare (D-2) Department, dt. 11.2.1994 as confirmed by order of the said authority dt.14/3/97 as per the proceedings in G.O.(D) No.1349, Health and Family Welfare Department, dt.15/10/97, with a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits till the actual date of superannuation and to regulate the leave and pending increments of the petitioner.2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon at the Primary Health Center at Satyamangalam, South Arcot District in 1966. He was transferred to different places and, during the period 1986-88, while he was serving as Assistant Surgeon at the Government Hospital, Tittagudi, South Arcot...
D.Bhrath Kumar, and ors. Vs. D.Chandrasekar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 2.12.2008, made in A.S.No.45 of 2005, on the file of the District Court and Fast Track Court, No.4, Ponneri, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21.12.2004, made in O.S.No.101 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.2. The plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.101 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The defendant in the said suit is the respondent herein. The suit had been filed praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and others from interfering with the plaintiffspeaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, and for costs.3. In the plaint filed in the suit, in O.S.No.101 of 1998, it has been stated that the first plaintiffs father D.Viswanathan, son of Kumarasamy Chetty, had been adopted by Badraiah Chetty. The second plaintiff is the daughter of Chengalvaraya Chetty. She had...
Deivanai. Vs. the Secretary S1565 Palace Nagar Co-operative House Buil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the undated sale notice issued by the fourth respondent in Form No.9 under Rule 126(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988 for selling the petitioner's land and house properties situated in Old Survey No.194/2 and New Survey No.194/2A, Arurpatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, in public auction and to quash the same and to forbear the respondents from selling the petitioner's said land and house properties besides directing the respondents to reschedule the repayment of the loan amount due by the petitioner to the first respondent.3. The petitioner herein obtained housing loan to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- from the first respondent/Society for the construction of residential building in the patta land belonging to her morefully described in the writ petition and the loan amount was agreed to be paid in equal monthly installments for a period of ...
Mangaiyarkarasi, and ors. Vs. K.Murugan, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-2010
1. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.32,50,000/- awarded for the death of Dr.N.Venkateswaran in the road traffic accident on 09.09.1999, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.2.The brief facts are that on 09.09.1999, when the deceased Dr.Venkateswaran was travelling in his Maruti Car bearing Registration No.TN 27 M 0505 along with this Assistant, at about 3.15 p.m., near Pottaneri bus stop, the tempo van bearing Registration No.TN 39 F 0203 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car of the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.806 of 1999 on the file of Mecheri Police Station, Salem for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. He was getting monthly salary of Rs.14,564/-. That apart, he was also doing private practice. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent dr...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »