Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited V ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.153 of 2007 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Mannargudi.) 1. The State Transport Corporation questions the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. 2. On 03.06.2007, in a road accident, one Rajendran died. It is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant Corporation. The claimants were totally awarded Rs.3,97,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the Transport Corporation contended that wrong multiplier and excessive income has been taken and that has resulted in awarding huge compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased supported a huge family. However, the Tribunal deducted 1/3. For respondents 2 to 5, a very less amount has been granted for the loss of love and affection of the deceased. Towards cremation expenses, lesser amou...

N. Shankar Vs. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) Rep by ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide licence to the petitioner to run bar attached with wine shop No.8772 in the tender conducted on 25.7.12 as per the tender notice of the first respondent dated 05.07.2012 bearing Ref.No.SEMATHOE/2973/TENDER/2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It had been stated that the petitioner had participated in the tender, pursuant to the tender notice, dated 5.7.2012, and he was the successful bidder, in respect of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation shop No.8772. However, the licence had not been given to the petitioner, as he had not paid the security deposit, as per the tender conditions, within the time specified therein. Thereafter, based on the request made by the petitioner, the District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, had granted further time for payme...

The Special Tahsildar (La), Salem and Others Vs. Mallithunnisa and Oth ...

Court: Chennai

(These Appeals are focussed as against the judgment and decrees dated 19.05.2003 passed in LAOP Nos.258 and 270 of 2002 by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No.I, Salem.) These appeals are focussed as against the judgment and decrees dated 19.05.2003 passed in LAOP Nos.258 and 270 of 2002 by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No.I, Salem. 2. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus: The Government vide the Notification dated 23.02.1999 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land in various survey numbers in the village of Ammani Kondlampatti, Salem Taluk for the purpose of laying railway track between Salem and Karur. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 28.10.1999 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,14,490/- per hectare. Being agg...

Gail India Ltd., Rep. by Its Senior Manager (Law) Vs. the State of Tam ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013AIR(NOC)51

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.17216 of 2012, dated 26.07.2012 on the file of this Court.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2012, made in W.P.No.17216 of 2012. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner is the Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'GAIL) a public sector undertaking established as wholly owned company of Government of India. It is stated that the GAIL is a company engaged in exploration, protection, processing, transmission, distribution of natural gas and other related activities in India. It is further stated that in order to provide adequate infrastructure for the production and easy transportation of Natural Gas and Petroleum Products throughout the country, GAIL undertook to establish connectivity pipelines and also laid LPG pipelines across the country. It is stated that the advantages of City Gas Pipelines in the city of Delhi and Mumbai without...

Rasu @ Rathinasamy Vs. the District Collector, Tiruppur and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from issuing Stone Quarry License to the 5th respondent land situated at S.F.No.530/2A in Myvadi Village Madathukulam, Tiruppur District.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. 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 representation of the petitioner, dated 23.07.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 23.7.2012,...

M/S. Limtex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer Kotagiri ...

Court: Chennai

(This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the proceedings in Ref. No.32/2012/A2 dated 7.8.2012 of the 1st respondent quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to issue refund voucher for Rs.64,37,432/-.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 7.8.2012, is arbitrary and illegal, as he had rejected the claim for refund made by the petitioner, by filing form 'W', manually. In fact, there is no Rule or Regulation prohibiting the filing of form 'W', seeking the claim for refund, manually. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 7.8.2012, may be set aside and the first respondent may be directed to consider the form 'W', f...

T. Thiruvengadam Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu Rep by Its Additional ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.133, Industries (MMB2) Department, dated 11.7.2012 and quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 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 impugned order of the 1st respondent, dated 11.07.2012, is set aside and if the 1st respondent is directed to pass a speaking order on the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner, on 02.11.2007, by giving proper reasons. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the impugned order ...

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vellore District Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(2)TNMAC576; 2012(8)MLJ46

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Special Judge (MACT), at Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2002 dated 20.01.2003.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., aggrieved against the award passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2002. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has found that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle/tractor and awarded Rs.4,36,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. 2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal is stated as follows:- On 24.01.2001 at about 3.30 a.m., when the deceased Rangan @ Pandurangan was proceeding in Bajaj Scooter towards Vellisanthai in Pallakad ...

M/S.South India Surgical Company Ltd., Rep. by Its Director Vivek Baja ...

Court: Chennai

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in CST.No.34683/2009-10 dated 06.08.2012 and quash the same.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent had passed the impugned Order, dated 06.08.2012, erroneously, without passing an order, under Section 22 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006, accepting the returns filed by the petitioner. Only thereafter, if the respondent chooses to pass a revised Assessment Order, under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, he could have done so, after issuing a prior notice to the petitioner. However, the respondent had not followed the said procedure, while passing the impugned order, dated 06.08.2012. 3. The l...

State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Chief General Manager Vs. D. Chandras ...

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 C.P.No.6 of 1998 on the file of the second respondent viz., the Central Government Labour Court, Chennai and quash the order dated 18.6.2003.) ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the State Bank of India challenging the impugned award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.6 of 1998, dated 18.6.2003. 2. The only short issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that when the first respondent D.Chandrasekaran was dismissed from service of the petitioner Bank by the order dated 12.12.1982 and the said dismissal order was also upheld finally by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.7 of 1987, dated 23.5.1994, whether the Tribunal is legally right to postpone the order of dismissal dated 12.12.1982 giving effect to the same from the dat...