Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

D. Soundrarajan Vs. C.E.X. Onix Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER in both C.M.As.:- Appeals against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2006 made in MACTOP No.580 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.)COMMON JUDGMENT: Since C.M.A.No.266 of 2007 filed by the insurer and C.M.A.No.3544 of 2006 filed by the injured are connected on facts and law, they were tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the injured in a road accident and the Insurance Company have directed these appeals. 3. Let us have the array of parties as given in C.M.A.No.3544 of 2006. 4. On 08.06.2001, at about 8.15. p.m., while the appellant was cycling along Judge Jambulingam Road, near Radhakrishna Road, Chennai, he was knocked down by the lorry belonging to the first respondent, which has been insured with the second respondent. The appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries on his legs. He was then 44 years old...

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

PRAYER in both C.M.As.:- Appeals against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2008 made in MCOP Nos.3 & 4 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Namakkal. COMMON JUDGMENT Since C.M.A.Nos.111 of 2010 & 1072 of 2010 arose out of same road accident and are connected on facts, evidence and on law, they were tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The road accident was on 08.04.2002. In this accident, the spouses, Shanmugam and Rani died. Their children Sivakami and Prakash filed M.C.O.P.No.3 of 2003 and M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2003 claiming compensation for the death of their father and mother respectively. 3. The Tribunal found that the driver of the third respondent, insured with the fourth respondent, in which, the spouses have travelled and the driver of the appellant were equally responsible for the accident and thus, apportioned the negligence between them equally. In M.C.O.P.Nos.3 and ...

Sumanglam International, Rep.by Authorised Signatory Vs. the Assistant ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in TIN:33430442078/2007-08 and quash the order dated 31.8.2012 and further direct the respondent to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce the books of accounts and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that an opportunity of personal hearing had not been granted to the petitioner before the impugned assessment order, dated 31.8.2012, had been passed, by the respondent, in respect of the assessment year 2007-08. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had made a representation to the respondent, dated 4.7.2012, requesting for an opportunity of personal hearing and for the production of the books of accounts and to...

V. Saravanan Vs. the Principal Secretary to Government Department of R ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari Calling for the records of the impugned order dated 15.04.2011 in G.O.(2D) No.183 Revenue Ser.4(2) Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same.) 1. Whether a noting made by a Government employee in the official file indicating his opinion can be the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him, is the core issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition. The brief facts: 2. The petitioner was functioning as Sub Inspector of Survey attached to the Taluk Office of Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk. While so, he was placed under suspension on 19 August 2005 pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. This was followed by a charge memo dated 15 March 2006 issued by the Secretary to Government containing as many as two charges. The first charge alleged that the petitioner has put up a misleading note by calling for re...

S. Chandrasekaran Globe Ecologistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commierc ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ref.No.GD.No.66/2012-13 dated 13.10.2012 issued by the respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondents to release the vehicle in vehicle No.TN 52 B1515 from all the liabilities.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed: i) The petitioner shall pay the amount of tax of Rs.1,71,149/- demanded by the authority, while passing the detention order. ii) On payment of such tax amount, the goods detained shall be released and the same shall be subject to the final adjudication order,...

A. Umar and Another Vs. Vathiyar Finance, Rep. by Its Managing Partner ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)565

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set-aside the order of dismissal of C.M.P.No.6500 of 2005 in C.C.No.390 of 2000, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore, dated 23.02.2006.) 1. The revision petitioner / petitioner / accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.291 of 2005 against the order passed in C.M.P.No.6500 of 2005 in C.C.No.390 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore, dated 23.02.2006. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The complainant is a registered finance company. The first accused, being the Proprietor of the second accused firm, had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant, for his business purpose, on 29.06.1997, and executed a promissory note agreeing to pay the said sum with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In order to discharge the part payment of the said debt, the first accused had issued a cheque dated 12.01.2000, for a sum...

K. Ramaraj Vs. N. Murugavel

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Cr)DCC173

(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.9098 of 2007 in C.C.No.105 of 2006, dated 06.12.2007, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Coimbatore.) 1. The revision petitioner / petitioner/ accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1961 of 2007, against the order made in C.M.P.No.9098 of 2007 in C.C.No.105 of 2006, dated 06.12.2007, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Coimbatore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant on 19.07.2002, for his urgent family expenses and executed a pronote agreeing to pay the said sum with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The accused paid the interest upto year 2005. On demand made by the complainant, the accused had issued a cheque dated 08.07.2005, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, R.S.Puram Branch, Coimbatore, to and in favour of the complainant. When the complainant ...

Mohanambal and Others Vs. Union of India Represented by Secretary to G ...

Court: Chennai

(This appeal is focussed as against the award of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal dated 24.08.2007 in LAOP No.15 of 2003.) This appeal is focussed as against the Award of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal dated 24.08.2007 in LAOP No.15 of 2003. 2. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government vide the Notification dated 21.07.1998 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land in various survey numbers for the purpose of establishing Industrial Growth Centre at Polagam T.R.Pattinam Firka in Karaikal Area in the Union Territory of Puducherry. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 31.03.2000 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,800/- for wet lands and Rs.1,200/- for dry lands per are. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owners...

Mrs. Rabiya Basheer Ali Vs. C. Devendra Prasad

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ42; 2013(1)MWN(Civil)389

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 26.7.2012 in R.C.A.No.164 of 2012 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai modifying the order dated 5.3.2012 in M.P.No.10 of 2012 in R.C.O.P.No.508 of 2009 on the file of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.) 1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. 2. The landlord/respondent filed application for eviction and the tenant/revision petitioner marked Ex.R1 and thereafter, the landlord filed application to reject Ex.R1 stating that Ex.R1 consists of two documents and the first document is properly valued and stamped and the second document is a supplementary lease agreement and that document is not duly stamped and unregistered one and therefore, that document cannot be marked in evidence and therefore, the said document has to be rejected. That petition was allowed and the revision petitioner was directed to pay stamp duty penalty for the second document viz., not duly stamped and unregistered document ...

T. Dhanabagiyam Vs. the Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Marketing C ...

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 2nd respondent to confirm the tender which was held on 24.7.2012 for the bar license attached to the Shop No.9125 situates at # 885, NH 205, Elavoor, Gummidipoondi Taluk Thiruvallur District.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. Even though a number of issues had been raised in the present writ petition, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Tasmac shop No.9125 had been shifted from the premises bearing door No.885, NH 205, Elavoor, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District, to another location. However, no fresh tender had been called for the issuance of the bar licence, in respect of the said shop, till date. Therefore, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to call for a fresh tender, in respect of the Tasmac shop No.9125, by way of notification to be published in a Tamil daily...