Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

G. Sivasubramaniyam and Others Vs. the Advocate General, High Court, M ...

Court: Chennai

(A.No.4062 of 2012 is filed to permit the applicants to conduct the elections and to fill up the five vacancies (i.e., two to be elected by the Hindu members of the Senate of the University of Madras, one to be elected by the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board College Council and two to be elected from amongst the electoral college consisting of all the approved teachers from all the colleges of Pachaiyappa's Charities) in the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board. A.No.4129 of 2012 is filed to appoint an interim Administrator to administer the Pachaiyappa's Trust as per the terms of the Scheme Decree framed by this Court till the elections for the Board of Trustees is conducted. A.No.4226 of 2012 is filed to implead the applicant as proposed second respondent in A.No.4062 of 2012. A.No.4497 of 2012 is filed seeking to restrain the Board of Trustees of Pachaiyappa's functioning duty as Trustee till the election conducted. A.No.4498 of 2012 is filed seeking to appoint a committee compris...

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Rep. by Its Asst General Manager (Admn a ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pursuant to the impugned order dated 26.4.2011 in reference No. Naa.Kaa.No.93/2010/A2 relating to the Assessment Nos. 4973-75 in respect of the Telephone Exchange BSNL Mallasamudram Namakkal and BSNL Staff Quarters Mallasamudram Namakkal and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation to the second respondent, with regard to its claim, along with the relevant records to substantiate its claim, within a specified period. On such representati...

S. Gopinath Vs. the Commissioner O/O.Kanchipuram Municipality Kanchipu ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to providing a new property tax in the name of the petitioner in respect of Survey No.241 and 237/1A property situated at No.28C 28 Karukkinil Amarndaval Koil Street Kanchipuram Kanchipuram District based on petitioners application No.5852 and the same was accepted in Receipt No.96/2012 dated 16.4.2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the application No.5852, dated 16.4.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the ...

P.N. Karuppa Gounder Vs. Karuppayal and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)425

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 6.6.2012 in I.A.No.423 of 2012 in I.A.No.208 of 2012 in O.S.No.271 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam) 1. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The defendants were set ex parte and the third defendant filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree and in that application, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed petition under Order XIX Rule 2 to cross-examine the third defendant viz., the third respondent herein and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 3. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the third defendant filed the application to condone the delay stating that she was suffering from jaundice and to disprove her claim, she has to be cross-exami...

Sivaprakasam Vs. the Junior Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 9 to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner in respect of his pump-set well situate in the schedule mentioned land, with a further direction to award an amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner herein.) Heard Mr.Sivaprakasam, petitioner as party in person; Mr.G.Vasudevan learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 7 and 9 and Mr. S. Rajendiran learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents 1 to 9 to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner in respect of his pump-set well situate in the schedule mentioned land, with a further direction to award an amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner herein. 3. According to the petitioner, the very object of the pe...

N. Sundaresan Vs. S. Chandrasekaran

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ539

(Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 28.9.2011 in R.C.A.No.136 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (appellate authority) confirming the order dated 13.2.2007 in R.C.O.P.No.1308 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Controller). Tenant is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondent/landlord filed petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default. It is the case of the respondent/landlord that the rent for the premises is Rs.1600/= per month and the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1.1.2002 to 31.5.2003 and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. The revision petitioner contested the application stating that the rent for the premises is not Rs.1600/= per month and it is only Rs.1200/= per month and he has paid an advance of Rs.25,000/= and he has paid rent upto May 2003 and the same has been acknowledged by the landlord in the chit given by him and from the month of June 2003, ...

Komeravel Gounder and Others Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Compa ...

Court: Chennai

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order made in M.C.O.P. No.278 of 2003 dated 31.1.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Court), Gobichettypalayam.) COMMON JUDGMENT: R. BANUMATHI, J. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1102 of 2007 arises out of the award in M.C.O.P.No.278 of 2003 (31.1.2006) declining to grant compensation for the death of Senthilkumar and awarding only Rs.50,000/- under "No Fault Liability". Being aggrieved by awarding of Rs.50,000/- towards "No Fault Liability", Insurance Company has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1263 of 2007. Both the appeals were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts are that on 15.09.2002 at 9.30 A.M., deceased Senthilkumar was driving Maruthi car bearing registration No.TN 29-L 1919 from north to south and while nearing Ayakovil Pirivu road, ASTC Depot to Namakkal National Highways Road, Rasipuram, a dog suddenl...

Sivasakthi Wood Works Rep by Its Managing Partner Vs. Maraimalai Nagar ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned demand notices dated 4.7.2012 issued by the respondent for the Assessment Nos.12791 and 12792 in respect of the property situated Plot No.5, Senkundram Industrial Area, Melrosapuram within Maraimalai Nagar Municipality in Kancheepuram District and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that this Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to make detailed representation with regard to its claim within a specified period. On such representation being made, the respondent would consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon on merits and in accordance wi...

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. K. Vaijayanhtimala and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ400

(Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 10.10.2006 made in MCOP.No.201/2002 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge (MACT) Chengalput.) The National Insurance Company Limited has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal aggrieved by the award dated 10.10.2006 made in MCOP.No.201/2002 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge (MACT) Chengalput, whereby the Tribunal directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay a compensation of Rs.6,60,000/- with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. as compensation to the claimants on behalf of the 5th Respondent herein/owner of the offending vehicle. 2. The brief facts are that on 15.10.2001, at about 1.30 p.m. the deceased was proceeding in his bicycle on the Andiyappa Mudali Street and when he was near the junction of Royapuram Rangapillai Junction, the Tractor Trailer Water Tanker Lorry owned by the 5th Respondent and insured with the Appellant Insurance Company hit against the deceased causing fatal...

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Gudiyattam Vs. R. Siva and Oth ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ278; 2013(1)TNMAC198

(Prayer:- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petition are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2005 made in MCOP.Nos.245, 246, 260 and 358/2002 by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT) Gudiyatham.) COMMON JUDGEMENT Though a common award dated 31.10.2005 was passed in MCOP.Nos.245, 246 and 260/2002, against which these appeals have been filed and a separate award dated 31.10.2005 was made in MCOP.No.358/2002, against which this Civil Revision Petition has been filed, since all the said claims arise out of the same accident, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petition are being disposed of by this common judgement. 2. By the impugned award, a sum of Rs.51,000/- as total compensation to the injured claimant R.Siva in MCOP.No.245/2002, a sum of Rs.2,39,000/- as total compensation to the claimants in MCOP.No.246/2002, who are the widow, daughters and son of the deceased P.Suresh, a sum of Rs.2,13,000/- as total compensation to the claimants i...