Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

B. Ramprakash Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary Home ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the concerned records from the 1st respondent, quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 11.2.2011 bearing Letter No.89571/Police. 15/2010-5 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis in the suitable post.) 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11 February 2011 on the file of first respondent denying the petitioner appointment on compassionate basis. Summary of facts: 2. The petitioner is the son of Tmt. B. Yasodha, who was a Junior Assistant in the office of the commissioner of police, Coimbatore. She died in a road accident on 14 April 1995. The father of the petitioner was also seriously injured in the said accident. The petitioner was 11 years, as on the date on which his mother died and father sustained grievous injury. The father has relinq...

Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital Vs. Medical Council of India, ...

Court: Chennai

(Amended Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India held on 12.12.2011 and quash paragraph 4 of the Minutes insofar as it requires submission of a fresh Essentiality Certificate where the existing Essentiality Certificate is more than three years old and further quash the consequent order of the respondent in Proceedings No.MCI-37(1)/2012-Med/114890 dated 29.6.2012 and consequently direct the respondent to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for increase of MBBS seats from 100 to 150 without insisting upon a fresh or revalidated essentiality certificate.) The prayer as amended in the writ petition is to quash paragraph 4 of the Minutes of Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India held on 12.12.2011 and the order of the Medical Counc...

S. Thanikachalam Vs. E. Rani and Others

Court: Chennai

(Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.3291 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Chennai (Fast Track Court II).) This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.3291 of 2002 by the learned Additional District Judge, Chennai (Fast Track Court II). 2. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The plaintiffs originally nine in number filed the suit for partition as against the three defendants seeking the following reliefs: "(a) To grant a preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiffs 7/10 share of the schedule mentioned property in the plaint; (b) to grant an order of injunction restraining the defendants from collecting rents payable from the tenants as set out in the sc...

Balachandran Vs. State Rep by the Inspector of Police M-1 Periyanaicke ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(2)LW(Cri)749; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)648

(Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20.01.2007 made in Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I) Coimbatore confirming the judgment dated 15.09.2006 passed in C.C. No. 95 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.) The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC by the trial court. After conclusion of trial, the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2006 before the appellate Court and...

Teccon Services (P) Limited Represented by Its Director, S. Jagannatha ...

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 first respondent in SP No.73/12 in AP No.12/12 and quash the order dated 13-09-2012 so far as the condition of furnishing of security for the balance of the tax in the form of immovable property or bank guarantee is concerned pending disposal of the appeal.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. 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 order of the first respondent, dated 13.9.2012, made in S.P.No.73 of 2012, in A.P.No.12 of 2012, is modified, permitting the petitioner to furnish a personal bond for the balance amount of tax of Rs.2,53,407/-, ...

Kasilingam Vs. Rajavannian and Others

Court: Chennai

(This second appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2005 of learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Vridhachalam passed in A.S.No.98 of 2004 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2004 of the II Additional District Munsif of Vridhachalam in O.S.No.71 of 1999.) This second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 22.03.2005 passed in A.S.No.98 of 2004 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vridhachalam in O.S.No.71 of 1999. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. Niggard and bereft of details the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus: (a) The plaintiff, who is the second appellant herein, filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property ...

Rangasamy Gounder and Others Vs. Valliammal and Others

Court: Chennai

(Second Appeal preferred against the judgment and decrees dated 9.3.2000 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, in A.S.No.233 of 1999 confirming the judgement and decree dated 9.8.1999 passed by the District Munsif, Perundurai, in O.S.No.155 of 1997.) This appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs as against the judgment and decree dated 9.3.2000 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, in A.S.No.233 of 1999, confirming the judgment and decree dated 9.8.1999 passed by the District Munsif, Perundurai, in O.S.No.155 of 1997, which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Niggard and bereft of unnecessary details, the germane facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: (i) The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in the second appeal filed the suit seeki...

M/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others Vs. Dr. S. Jayachan ...

Court: Chennai

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common order made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1901 and 1902 of 2002 dated 30.6.2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Small Causes Court), Chennai.) COMMON JUDGMENT R.BANUMATHI, J. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded for the death of deceased Dr.Sezhiyan, Insurance Company has preferred appeal - C.M.A.No.1156 of 2009. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded for the death of Sezhian and also for the injuries sustained by Claimant Jayachandra, wife of Sezhian and seeking enhancement of compensation both in fatal as well as injury case, Claimants have preferred appeals - C.M.A.Nos.72 and 76 of 2011 respectively. 2. Brief facts are that on 24.02.2002 at about 18.45 hours, deceased Sezhian was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-07 L 3007 on Tharamani 100 feet road from east to west. At that time, the van bearing registration No.TN-49-A 2700 driven by it...

S. Sivaraj Vs. the District Collector, Kancheepuram District and Other ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent in his Na.Ka.No.A6/2012 dated 1.2.2012 and the consequential order of the 1st respondent in his Na.Ka.No.4140/2012/VI dated 9.3.2012 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to close down and remove the TASMAC Shop No.4126 at New Door No21,(Old No.19/20) Muthuranga Mudali Street, West Tambaram, Kancheepuram District.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. There is no representation on behalf of the third respondent. 2.At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, had placed before this Court a communication, dated 05.10.2012, issued by the District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Kancheepuram, stating that steps have been taken to reloc...

indira Metal Industries, Rep. by Its Partner S.K. Gupta Vs. the Chairm ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in his letter No.EE/O&M;/TPT/AS.I/F.Theft/D.No.1415/2011, dated 25.10.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of waiver of belated payment of surcharge as found in the Memo No.45/CFC/GL/DFC/R/AO/HT/2008, dated 27.3.2008 and recommended by the third respondent in his letter No.SC/CEDC/N/AEE/GL/F.Violation/D.2282, dated 22.12.2009.) Heard Mr.C.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner calls in question the order of the second respondent in its impugned letter No.EE/O&M;/TPT/AS.I/F Theft/D.No.1415/2011, dated 25.10.2011 seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of waiver of the belated payment of surcharge as found i...