Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

Venkatesan (Deceased) and Others Vs. Kasthuri and Another

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.9.2008 made in MCOP.No.99/2003 by the learned Subordinate Judge, MACT, Maduranthagam.) 1. The injured claimant Venkatesan in the claim petition in MCOP.No.99/2003 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, MACT, Maduranthagam has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, challenging the award dated 18.9.2009, being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.1,74,754/- awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him. The injured claimant/appellant died pending the appeal and the Appellants 2 to 4, who are the wife and daughters of the injured claimant, were brought on record as his legal representatives by order of this court dated 4.6.2012 made in CMP.No.1/2010 and thus, the said legal representatives are further prosecuting the litigation at present. 2. Mr.R.Nadana Sabapathy, the learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that in the facts and circumstances, taking into consider...

Madhu Vs. P. Sathyanarayanan and Another

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court), Kallakurichy.) The injured, in a road accident, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, directed this appeal. 2. On 13.11.2002, the appellant sustained injury in a road accident. With regard to the injury, as there was inconsistent evidence, the Tribunal disbelieved the medical evidence and concluded that it is a case of simple injury and granted only Rs.7,300/-. This conclusion of the Tribunal was mainly on the non-production of certain medical records. In the circumstances, CMP.No.20293 of 2005 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. by the appellant seeking leave of the Court to receive those record as additional documents. Since they are required to pronounce judgment in this appeal, those Additional documents, namely, the Accident Register and the Discharge Summary are mark...

M/S. Reliance Infratel Limited, Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder R ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in GD.No.97/2012-13 dated 12.10.2012 passed by the respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondent to release the vehicle with goods bearing registration No.KA 04 B 1976 from all liabilities.) M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed: i) The petitioner shall pay the amount of tax of Rs.2,38,426/- demanded by the authority, while passing the detention order. ii) On payment of such tax amount, the goods detained shall be released and the same shall be subject to ...

M/S. Sunbeam Generators Pvt Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Ro ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings, in G.D.No.8/2012-13 dated 16.10.2012 and quash this detention order as illegal and direct the respondent to release the goods detained.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed: i) The petitioner shall pay the amount of tax of Rs.73,119/- demanded by the authority, while passing the detention order. ii) On payment of such tax amount, the goods detained shall be released and the same shall be subject to the final adjudication order, which may be passed by the authority concerned. iii) It is...

M/S. National Insurance Company Limited and Others Vs. S. Sankara Nara ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award made in M.C.O.P. Nos.4603 to 4610 of 2003 dated 18.12.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) Common Judgment R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal holding that insurer of Tata Sumo car bearing registration No.TN-01 M 0036 is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner-1stRespondent, Insurance Company has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1413 to 1420 of 2008. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Claimants have preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1767 to 1774 of 2008. Since, all appeals arise out of the common Award, all the appeals were heard together and disposal of by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in the Claim Petitions. 2.Brief facts which led t...

R. Marappan and Another Vs. the District Collector, Tiruppur District ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate proceedings against the 8th respondent and not to permit the 8th respondent to proceed with the construction of the school/hostel building in Survey No.426 situated at Neruperichal Village, Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur Distridt within 300 Mts. From the petitioner's rough stone quarry comprised in R.S.No.86/1A measuring an extent of 0.58.0 Hec., and R.S.No.89/3B measuring an extent of 1.50.0 Hec. both totally measuring an extent of 2.08.0 Hec. Situated at Agrahar Periapalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate proceedings against the 8t...

Indian Bank, Through Its Chief Manager Vs. Godfrey W. Noble and Anothe ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli in O.S.SR.No.10918 of 2012 dated 14.8.2012 insofar as refusal to return the Court-fee wrongly paid by the Petitioner.) 1. The Petitioner-Bank presented a Plaint before the District Court, Tirunelveli, against the Respondents for recovery of Rs.11,40,615/- and Court fee of Rs.85,548/- was paid. Since the claim in the Plaint was above Rs.10,00,000/- the District Court returned the Plaint by stating that how the Suit is maintainable before the District Court since separate Debt Recovery Tribunal is available. Afterwards, the Plaint was re-presented with an endorsement by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that since it is a Suit for recovery of money, based on a pronote and not on a mortgage, the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993, is not applicable and that the Civil Court is having jurisdiction and the ...

Mrs. Mary Rani Swamy Vs. -

Court: Chennai

(This petition is filed under Order 21 Rules 2 and 3 and 10A of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Section 41(6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with Clause 17 of the Letters Patent seeking to appoint the petitioner as the adopted parent of the person of the minor female child Jency Jothika born on 20.12.1999 and the minor female child Jency Jothika may be entitled to the legal status of a biological child with all rights of succession and inheritance.) This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 41(6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 seeking that she may be permitted to adopt the minor girl child Jency Jothika, born on 20.12.1999 and for declaration that the minor child is entitled to legal status of a biological child with all rights of succession and inheritance from the petitioner. 2. The O.P was admitted on 11.09.2012. When the matter came up on 18.10.2012, the petitioner exam...

M/S. SholIn Enterprises Chennai Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct), C ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the ex-parte Impugned Order dated 26.07.2012, under Ref. No.TIN 33910582561/08-09, passed by the respondent herein and received by the petitioner in person on 08.08.2012 pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09 and to quash the same, holding the same to be unconstitutional, arbitrary and one passed without following the principles of natural justice.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file its objections, if any, to the revision notice, dated 09.07.2012, issued by the respondent in respect of the Assessment Year 2008-2009, within a time stipulated by this Court. A copy of the assessment order r...

Paramanandan Vs. Selvanagaki and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(6)CTC58; 2013(1)LW58

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 26.4.2011, passed in CMP.No.113 of 2010, in A.S.SRNo.56564 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The third defendant/third respondent is the revision petitioner herein. The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.4449 of 2001, on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for delivery of possession. The said suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, she filed an Appeal, but, there happened to be a delay on 1670 days in filing the same. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1670 days in preferring the Appeal and that application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the suit was dismissed...