Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

B. Varadarajan Vs. the Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India a ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17258 of 2008 dated 08.03.2010.) M. VENUGOPAL, J. The Appellant/Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 08.03.2010 in W.P.No.17258 of 2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing orders in W.P.No.17258 of 2008 on 08.03.2010, has, among other things, observed that '... Therefore, the Petitioner should have known his position, when he moved a writ petition No.8968/2008 before this Court with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to accept his application for voluntary retirement dated 28.08.2003. The respondents/bank has not accepted his voluntary retirement and, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents/bank cannot take any disciplinary action, since his application seeking voluntary retirement is deemed to have b...

The Management of Kandasamy Spinning Mills Private Ltd., Rep. by Its M ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari, call for the records and quash the award dated 23.07.2008 and 24.07.2008 passed in I.D.Nos.48 and 25 of 2004 respectively by the 1st respondent Industrial Tribunal.) Common Order 1. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same management. 2. In the first writ petition viz., W.P.No.29877 of 2008, the Management challenges an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, the first respondent in I.D.No.48 of 2004 dated 23.07.2008. By the aforesaid Award, the Tribunal held that the demand of the Trade Union to revoke the illegal cessation of operation of the factory with effect from 02.05.2003 by the Management was not justified and the workmen are entitled for payment of back wages with continuity of service. 3. The second writ petition viz., W.P.No.29878 of 2008 challenges an Award of the same Industrial Tribunal passed in I.D.No.25 of 2004 dated 24.07.2008, wherein the Tri...

K. Sathanadam and Others Vs. the Sub Inspector of Police District Crim ...

Court: Chennai

1. The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A.1, A.2A.4 and A.5, are alleged to have committed the following offences, with reference to Cr.No.19 of 2012 on the file of the respondent, seek anticipatory bail. S.NoCrl.O.P.NoPetitionersOffences124086 /2012K. Ponmudi/A.14(1), 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 and Rule 36A of TN Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959, U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 120(B), 353, 379, 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC224085 /2012GowthamSigamani/A.2 K.S.RajaMahendran/A.44(1), 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 and Rule 36A of TN Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959, U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 120(B), 353, 379, 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC324276/2012K. Sathanadam/A.54(1), 4(1A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 and Rule 36A of TN Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1959, U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Pr...

M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. B. Krishnaveni and Others

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER:- Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2003 made in MCOP No.289 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.I), Coimbatore.) The Insurance Company mainly questions the quantum of compensation granted to the first respondent. 2. The claimant was awarded Rs.2,16,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.1,50,000/- towards property damage. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant is a non-earning member - a 'Homemaker', however, the Tribunal adopted a monthly income as yardstick. Further, in the facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case for adopting the multiplier method. A second-hand car suffered damage. Its value itself is Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,50,000/-. Further, no proper person has been examined to speak about the estimate and the receipts. The Tribunal granted excessive compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the clai...

K. Madhavan Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram

Court: Chennai

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to release the Lorry bearing Regn.No.TN 56 C 2983 which was seized on 01.10.2012.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to release the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 56 C 2983. 3. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, in similar matters, the respondent is directed to release the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 56 C 2983, to the petitioner, forthwith, on his fulfilling the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall establish the ownership of the vehicle, by producing the necessary documents and the certificates, before the respondent, including the R.C. Book. ...

A. Sivaprakash Vs. Ammasaiathal @ Chinnammal (Deceased) and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ566; 2013(1)CTC791

(Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 7.7.2008 made in EA.No.18/2007 in EP.No.83/2003 in OS.No.45/1999 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-V) Coimbatore at Tiruppur.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 7.7.2008 made in EA.No.18/2007 in EP.No.83/2003 in OS.No.45/1999 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-V) Coimbatore at Tiruppur, allowing the petition filed by the obstructor/3rd party under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 and 101 of CPC, thereby excluding the undivided 1/3rd share of the petitioner/obstructor from execution of the decree passed in EP.No.83/2003. 2. The original suit in OS.No.457/1999 was instituted by the Appellant/decree holder for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16.0.1996 against the deceased 1st Defendant Subbaraya Gounder and his sons, Respondents 2 and 3 herein/ Defendants 2 and 3. The registered sale agreement was executed by the deceased 1st Defen...

R. Lakshmi Vs. K. Palanisamy and Another

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 10.01.2005 made in MCOP.No.1173/2003 by the learned Principal District Judge (MACT) Erode.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 10.01.2005 made in MCOP.No.1173/2003 by the learned Principal District Judge (MACT) Erode. 2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has arrived at a total compensation of Rs.2,13,200/- and after fastening contributory negligence on the deceased to an extent of 50 per cent, awarded a sum of Rs.1,06,600/- as total compensation to the claimant/appellant herein with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 3. On 15.9.2003, when the deceased Govindasamy and his owner Mohanasundharam were travelling from Dharmapuri in Bajaj Tempo Van bearing Reg.No.TN-07-F-9796, at about 10.45 p.m. near Kandhampalayam Pirivu at Perundurai, the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-37-A-9050 coming in the opposite d...

M/S. Naraiuran Controls (India) P. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in TIN 33291483256/2008-09, quash the impugned revised order dated 29/03/12 and further direct the respondent to pass orders afresh after considering the objections enclosed in the Annexures filed by the petitioner and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the respondent, having passed the assessment order, dated 15.11.2010,accepting the returns filed by the petitioner, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, had issued a notice for revision of assessment on the same day, i.e. on 15.11.2010. The respondent does not have any authority to issue such a notice for revision of assessment, on the same day, after having passed an order, under Sect...

Palayammal Vs. I. Dhanamma and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ15; 2012(5)LW669

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009 passed in A.S.No.631 of 2006 by the learned Additional Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, City Civil Cout at Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2006 passed in O.S.No.8663 of 1994, by the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. The fourth defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was originally filed by the deceased first plaintiff Jacob for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation in respect of the suit property, namely the building bearing Door No.20/1, Perumal Koil Garden, 6th Lane, Sowcarpet, Madras 600 079 comprised in Old S.No.3668 and ReS.No.7854. The suit was filed against all the 7 respondents arraying them as Defendants 1 to 7. The first respondent/first defendant Muthammal is the mother of the other respondents, namely Defendants 2 to 7. Contending that Muthammal was the tenant in resp...

Mohanraj and Others Vs. State Rep by Additional Superintendent of Poli ...

Court: Chennai

1. The petitioners, who are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978, under Sec.420 IPC and under Sec.5 of TNPID Act 1997, were arrested on 11.8.2011 with reference to Cr.No.R.C.No.12(E) of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that during 2008-2009 at Tiruppur, A.1 to A.3 entered into a criminal conspiracy to collect deposits from the general public without specific approval from Reserve Bank of India on a false promise of Forex Trading but to indulge in circulation of money. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, on 2.7.2008 A.1 to A.3 floated a company by name M/s Paazee Forex Trading India Pvt Ltd with A.1, as Managing Director and A.2 and A.3, as the Directors of the Company. They also floated two partnership firms by name M/s Paazee Trading Inc (A5) and M/s Paazee Marketing Company (A6), both partnership represented and managed by its partners, A.1 to A.3....