Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

Durga Senapathy Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Perundurai Polic ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(3)MWN(Cr)434

(Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order 05.02.2008 made in Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Erode confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment dated 19.10.2007 made in C.C.No. 335 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 335 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai and he stood charged for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. Upon completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, failing which to undergo three months rigorous imprisonement. The trial court further held that since punishment was imposed for the major offence for which the petitioner was tried upon na...

Velappan Vs. S. Duraisamy and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: SecondAppeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the First District Court, Salem made in A.S.No.58 of 2001 dated 31.01.2002 confirming the judgment and decree of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem, dated 22.1.2001 made in O.S.No.1724 of 1996. SecondAppeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.58 of 2001 dated 31.01.2002 on the file of the District Court, Salem, partly allowing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1724 of 1996 dated 22.1.2001 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.) What is the the scope of the presumption in the case of acquisitions in the names of male members of a joint family and the female members of a joint family? 1.1. What is the foundation for the distinction in the presumptions arising when the male/female member of the family acquiring the property in his/her name? These are the main issues to be ans...

United India Insurance Co.Ltd and Others Vs. A. Manjula and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.Nos.1766 and 3546 of 2011 are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.4090 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) R. BANUMATHI, J. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.13,75,000/- awarded for the death of K.Ashokan in a road traffic accident on 24.04.2007, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.1766 of 2011. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimants have preferred C.M.A.No.3546 of 2011. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Award, they were heard together and stand disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in C.M.A.No.1766 of 2011. 2. Brief facts are that on 24.4.2007 deceased Ashokan was travelling in the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-09-AC 5496 as pillion rider from Pa...

Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. National Agricultural Coop. Marketing

Court: Chennai

1 . This Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Award dated 29.12.2008 passed by the second respondent/Arbitrator. 2 . The case of the first respondent as claimant before the second respondent Arbitrator is as follows: The petitioner herein is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act . The petitioner is carrying on business in the line of manufacturing and marketing of Sugar. The first respondent is a Nodal Agency of Government of India for procuring and supply of agricultural commodities all over India. It is registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act and it is essentially a Farmers Co-operative Society carrying on business of procuring and arranging for exports, imports and distribution of agricultural and allied products in India. 3 . In August 2004, the petitioner approached the first respondent to facilitate the import of 40,000 M.Tons of Raw Sugar from...

M/S. Indian Bank, Vellore MaIn Branch, Rep.by Its Zonal Manager, Madra ...

Court: Chennai

(Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2006 in O.S.No.48 of 2005 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore.) R. SUBBIAH, J. Aggrieved over the dismissal of suit (dated 14.02.2006) as against the guarantors i.e. defendants 2 to 4 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore in O.S.No.48 of 2005, Bank has preferred this Appeal. 2. Appellant is the Indian Bank, Vellore Main Branch and respondents are defendants 1 to 4. For easy reference, parties are referred to as per their ranking in the original suit. 3. Brief facts of Plaintiff Bank are as follows: (a) Plaintiff bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs.6,05,486.45 from the defendants jointly and severally towards the secured over draft facility together with future interest at 20.25% with quarterly rests, and in failure of the same, sale of schedule mentioned properties may be passed. (b) Cas...

P.S. Karikalan and Another Vs. the Management of the Tamil Nadu Cooper ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in W.P. No.86 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records in pertaining to the award passed in A.P. No.32 of 2005 dated 18.10.2011 passed by the second respondent, quash the same "to the extent of giving direction to the Management to adduce fresh evidence to substantiate their contention". Prayer in W.P. No.25833 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in A.P. No.32 of 2005 insofar as the dismissing the approval petition and direct the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh based on the fresh evidence to be let in by the petitioner by ignoring the findings regarding victimization and disproportionality of the punishment.). COMMON ORDER Since both the writ petitions are directed against a single order, both the writ petitions are taken up together and...

E. Thanga Nadar Vs. the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirune ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2012(8)MLJ600

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 10.06.2009 in W.P.No.9355 of 2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge.) M. VENUGOPAL, J. The Appellant/Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 10.06.2009 in W.P.No.9355 of 2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the order in W.P.No.9355 of 2000 on 10.06.2009, has, among other things, observed that '... it is clear that the petitioner is far junior to the third respondent in the post of Assistant, which is the feeder category to the post of Superintendent. Hence, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected and the claim of the third respondent was considered by the second respondent and approved by the first respondent. Petitioner has not made out a case on merits to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Superintendent' and consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition without costs. 3. The Writ Petition av...

Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Rep by Its the Assistant Commiss ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second Respondent in No.TAN CMBC03061C/TDS CIRCLE/ CBE dated 16-10-2012 and to quash the order of the Second Respondent in his proceedings in No.TAN CMBC03061C/TDS CIRCLE/CBE dated 16-10-2012 as void ab initio, erroneous and without jurisdiction against Public Policy and direct the First Respondent to dispose of the Appeal and Stay petition pending in ITA-03/12-13 dated 21.05.2012). 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for 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 this Court is pleased to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal and the stay petition pending on the file of the first respondent, in ITA-03/12-13, dated 21.05.2012, within a stipulated period, as per law. He had further submitted th...

J. Banumathi Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal and Anothe ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to implement the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal made in Appeal No.147 of 2011, dated 29.6.2012, for the issue of 5 seater Share Auto Permit.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel 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 first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 26.9.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 4. In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation, dated 26.9....

Muthukumarasamy Prop. Sri Vari Travels Vs. Sree Gokulam Chits and Fina ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Cr)DCC94; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)758

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.03.2012 made in C.M.P. No. 1258 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore ) The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 07.03.2012 in C.M.P. No. 1258 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore by which the petition filed by the respondent to condone the delay of 53 days in filing the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed. 2. The respondent herein has filed the unnumbered Calander case contending that the petitioner is one of the subscribers of chit group No. G2G/307/KDM/9 for a chit value of Rs.3,00,000/- with a duration of 20 months and monthly subscription of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner was declared as a successful bidder of a chit and therefore the respondent paid the prize amount of Rs.2,43,000/- on 18.09.2007. After receipt of the prize ...