Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

R. Balagowri and Another Vs.

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents and their subordinates to receive tax for Tamil Nadu for Seven days or thirty days or ninety days as tendered voluntarily in advance by the petitioner for using vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-7889 in Tamil Nadu Roads.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the issues involved in this writ petition are covered by the order of this Court, dated 24.4.2007 made in W.P.Nos.15061 to 15063 of 2007, and the order , dated 27.04.2011, passed in W.P.No.11095 of 2011, wherein, this Court had directed the respondents therein to receive the tax, as and when it is voluntarily tendered, by the petitioners therein, in advance, for 7 days, 30 days ...

Kanakaraj Vs. Lakshmanan

Court: Chennai

(This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai in A.S.No.126 of 1997 confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif No.I, Thiruvannamalai.) This second appeal is focussed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 30.12.2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai in A.S.No.126 of 1997 confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif No.I, Thiruvannamalai. 2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus: a] The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: - To pass a judgment and decree in his favour - declaring plai...

Ravi Vs. State by the Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation Wing

Court: Chennai

(Revision filed u/s.397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in CA.No.297/2006 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, Chennai and set aside the order dated 27.06.2007 confirming the judgment of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai dated 17.10.2006 in CC.No.5480/2004 convicting and sentencing the petitioner and acquit him from all the charges.) The revision is filed by the accused, driver of the tanker lorry, who has been convicted for the offence u/s.304-A IPC and u/s.184 of MV Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s.304-A IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo two weeks for the offence u/s.184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the Trial Court, viz., the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, vide judgment dated 17.10.2006 in CC.No.5480/2004 and which conviction and sentence ha...

The Management of Melanmai Iyakkunar, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drai ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in the impugned award dated 24.1.2003 passed in I.D.No.48/2001 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the file of the second respondent pertaining to the impugned award dated 24.1.2003 passed in I.D.No.48/2001, quash the same in so far as depriving regular time scale from the date of appointment and consequently direct the first respondent to give regular scale of pay and other benefits from the date of appointment to the workmen concerned with arrears and all consequential benefits. Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to G.O...

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Babu ...

Court: Chennai

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.587 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Cheyyar.) The State Transport Corporation mainly disputes the quantum of compensation. 2. On 23.11.2002, when the first respondent travelled in the bus owned by the Appellant, there was an accident, in this, he sustained injuries. For this, totally, he was awarded Rs.1,20,200/-. 3. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the injury was very very minimal. However, an elephantine amount has been granted as compensation. Further, P.W.2 had given inflated disability rate. It is a classic case of grant of excessive compensation not in proportion to the sufferings of the injured. 4. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the first respondent suffered heavily. Actually, what was granted to him is very less. For expense...

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. N. Chandrasekar and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 7.3.2003 made in MCOP.Nos.301 and 302/2001 by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT) Bhavani.) These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Appellant Insurance Company against the Judgement and Decree dated 7.3.2003 made in MCOP.Nos.301 and 302/2001 by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT) Bhavani. 2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,43,588/- as total compensation to the injured claimant N.Chandrasekar in MCOP.No.301/2001/the 1st Respondent in CMA.No.3061/2003 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that had occurred on 1.6.2001 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,67,138/- as total compensation to the injured claimant K.Govindaraj in MCOP.No.302/2001 for the injuries sustained by him in the same accident and awarded interest at 9 per cent from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization in both the claim petitions. 3. The brief facts of the case...

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Environment and Forest ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(2)CWC817; 2012(8)MLJ1

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order passed in W.P.No.14438 of 2009, dated 15.10.2009 on the file of this Court.) Common Judgment: The Hon'ble The Chief Justice & T.S. Sivagnanam, J 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed in a batch of writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. 2. The prayer in the writ petition was to issue a writ of prohibition to prohibit the appellants from in any manner preventing free vehicular movement and access of the respondents/writ petitioners to their patta lands in Oonamanchey village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, by using the land in survey No.181, Venkambakkam village, Tambaram Taluk, which is a forest land. 3. Since identical relief has been sought for in all the writ petitions and since a common counter affidavit was filed by the appellant/respondents, we refer to the facts in W.P.No.14438 of 2009. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, they...

M/S. Cauvery Palm Oil Ltd. Regd Office, Maharashtra Vs. the Chairman T ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the proceeding in Lr. No: SE/PEDC/PBLR/AEE/DEV/F. CAUVERY/ D.165/12 dated 07.08.2012 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to receive the application of the petitioner and grant / sanction new H.T. Service connection for the unit of the petitioner / company situated at Survey Nos: 374 and 383/1, Parpanachery Road, Thirumanur Block, Vanaravasi Village, Ariyalur Taluk and District as per the application registered and acknoweldged.) 1. Heard Mr. S. Nithyanandam learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Gunaraj learned counsel appearing for the respondents. What is challenged in the writ petition is the order of the Superintending Engineer, the 2nd respondent herein, in his proceedings dated 07.08.2012 in and by which the petitioner was directed to remit the compensation amount of...

K. Sugi Vs. R. Rajarathinam

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order dated 15.03.2011 of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, allowing the criminal appeal No.197 of 2010 and restore the order in Crl.M.P.No.1582 of 2010 in C.C.No.277 of 2010, on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, awarding a sum of Rs.7,500/- as interim maintenance to the petitioner herein.) The revision petitioner / respondent / petitioner had preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1321 of 2011 against the judgment made in C.A.No.197 of 2010, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, setting aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1582 of 2010 in C.C.No.277 of 2010, on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, awarding a sum of Rs.7,500/- as interim maintenance to the petitioner herein and remanding the matter back to the trial Court 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner / wife has filed a petition under Section...

G. Saravana Perumal and Another Vs. the Principal Secretary and Commis ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Roc.No.A1/78599/2009 dated 15.06.2011 on the file of the Respondent No.2 on the basis of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.Pani.3(2)/29271/2010 dated 24.01.2011 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash both the orders as illegal and consequently, direct the first respondent to retain the petitioner name in the Deputy Tahsildar List of 2009 in accordance with Notification in Roc.A1/78599/2009 dated 05.02.2010 with consequential benefits.) COMMON ORDER 1. This Common Order shall dispose of W.P.(MD)Nos.7649 and 7650 of 2011, as common question of law and facts are involved. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from W.P.(MD)No.7649 of 2011. 3. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Roc.No.A1/78599/2009 dated 15.06.2011, and the order ...