Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

Dakshinamoorthy Vs. the Union of India, Represented by Its General Man ...

Court: Chennai

(This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order issued by the second respondent herein made in his order Memo No.CCPC/S.Pension/2009, dated 24.1.2012 and quash the same as illegal and direct the second respondent to pay the monthly pension of Rs.13,090/- paid in the month of November, 2011 and continue to pay the monthly pension of Rs.13,090/- paid to the petitioner. ) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the second respondent State Bank of India and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the second respondent to pay the monthly pension of Rs.13,090/- paid during November, 2011 and continue to pay the pension at the same rate to the petitioner. 2. The writ petition when it came up for hearing on 03.04.2012, this court ordered notice of motion and had granted an interim s...

S. Ganesan Vs. State Rep by Its Inspector of Police and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)443

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 30.08.2011 made in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal confirming the judgment dated 25.09.2009 made in C.C. No. 209 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal.) 1. The petitioner stood charged for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and after trial, he was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal for the offences under Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner was also affirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal on 30.08.2011 in Crl.A. No. 69 of 2009. As against the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Revision Case. 2. The case ...

National Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Officer Vs. Kamal ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree, dated 17.06.2005 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.340 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Chengalpattu (in the Court of the Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu) 1. Aggrieved by the compensation of Rs.79,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., awarded to the wife, and five daughters, National Insurance Company Ltd., Madras, has preferred this Appeal. 2. The main objection of the Appellant / Insurance Company before the claims tribunal was that there has been a delay of 9 days in preferring the First Information Report. As per the version of the respondents/claimants, the accident occurred, on 09.06.1997. Whereas Ex. P-1 - FIR has been lodged only, on 17.06.1997. There was no mention about the registration number in Ex.P-1 – FIR in respect of an auto rickshaw said to have been involved in the accident and therefore, according to the insurance company, the cl...

P. Ravikumar Vs. Directorate of Technical Education Rep. by the Commis ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:-Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30.04.2010 made in W.P.No.17979 of 2009) ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 30.04.2010 made in W.P.No.17979 of 2009, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging the order, dated 11.06.2007 passed by the first respondent and the subsequent order, dated 13.07.2007, passed by the second respondent thereby rejecting the request made by the writ petitioner to go on voluntary retirement and treating the same as resignation from service, was dismissed. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he joined in the second respondent college as a Lab Assistant (Physics Department) on 25.06.1984 and thereafter, his appointment was approved by the first respondent, as per order dated 19.10.1985. and subsequently, he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 16.07.1989 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant on 01.04.1996 and after completing 22 year...

S. Arumugham and Others Vs. the Inspector General of Prison-cum Additi ...

Court: Chennai

(These writ petitions are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent issued in Ki. Si.1/auditing/ 2012 dated 23.7.2012 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to restore status quo as on the day before issue of impugned order dated 23.7.2012 within a time frame.) COMMON ORDER: These five writ petitioners are working as First Grade Warders or upgraded First Grade Warders and are at present posted to work at Arur Sub Jail and in one case Sub Jail, Uthangarai. By the impugned order dated 23.07.2012, the second respondent informed them that pay fixation given to them with effect from 01.01.2009 on par with one P.Manickam, who was working as upgraded Warder Grade-I in District Jail, Athur has been correctly fixed earlier. But, however, the subsequent fixations granted have been objected to by the Audit report for the year 2009-2010. The fir...

Smt. Sitara Devi JaIn and Others Vs. State Rep. by Its Inspector of Po ...

Court: Chennai

(Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in Crime No.308 of 2007 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.) COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are the Accused No.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in Crime No.308 of 2007 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Team-I, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 and they have come forward with these petitions to quash the said complaint against them. 2. The allegations in the complaint are:- Accused No.1 is the Leasing Finance Limited, Mylapore, Chennai and its branch office situated at Mysore represented by its Manager and Authorized Signatory Mr.Kuldeep Jain. Accused No.2 and 3 are the Directors of the first Accused Company. 3. The complainant approached the Accused No.1 at their Chennai office for a financial assistance/management assistance of Rs.13,92,00,000/-. The accused agreed to deposit the said sum and as such Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.01.2004 was entered into between the accused and ...

A.V. Balamurugan Vs. Bush Foods Overseas Pvt Ltd

Court: Chennai

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. 1. The defendant / applicant has filed this application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to direct the plaintiff / respondent to forthwith return all the original invoices regarding supplies made by the defendant / applicant to its retail traders (illegally and forcibly) taken away from defendant in the absence of the applicant so as to enable the defendant to realize the amounts due from the retail traders and pay the legitimate dues of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff / non applicant has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.43,91,045/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Ninety One Thousand and Forty Five only) together with interest. The plaintiff / non applicant is dealing in Basmati rice and on the request of the defendant / applicant, it supplied Basmati rice to the defendant / applicant for sale. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff / non applicant that rice bags were used to be supplied to the defendant / applicant on the basis of...

M/S. Blue Whale Logistics, Chennai and Another Vs. Chanchal Kanwar, Ch ...

Court: Chennai

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. 1. This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for directing the parties to refer the dispute, which is the subject matter of thesuit, in C.S.No.471 of 2011 to arbitration as per Clause-20 of the Partnership Deed dated 12.12.2008. 2. The plaintiff / non applicant filed a suit for dissolution of the 1st defendant firm M/s.Blue Whale Marine Services and for a decree for a sum of Rs.21,67,500/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only), being the share capital of the plaintiff. The prayer is also to render true and proper accounts of the Firm. 3. The Clause-20 of the Partnership Deed reads as under: "20. ARBITRATION: In the event of any dispute, doubt or question arising out of this instrument of partnership or as to the interpretation, operation or enforcement of the terms of this partnership between the parties hereto, such disputes shall be referred to and...

A.V. Thiyagarajan Vs. the Secretary to Government, Finance Department ...

Court: Chennai

(This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation, dated 19.6.2012 of the petitioner within a limited time limit regarding refixation of pension in the light of G.O.Ms.No.461, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 31.7.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.8.1996.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of his representation, dated 19.6.2012 within a time frame regarding refixation of pension in the light of G.O.Ms.No.461, Finance Department, dated 31.7.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance Department, dated 12.8.1996. 2. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner is 74 years old. In the representation, dated 19.6.2012, he claimed that he was working as an Assistant Teacher in Harur. He sought for revision of pension with effect from 1.7...

Balaji Vs. Vasu and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MLJ(Crl)537

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 30.06.2006 made in S.C. No. 391 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu.) 1. The revision petitioner is the PW1 in S.C. No. 391 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chengalpattu. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2006 passed by the Court below whereby the accused/respondents 1 and 2 herein were acquitted of the charges. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Amudha was given in marriage to the first accused. The second accused is the brother of the first accused. The revision petitioner is the brother of the deceased Amudha. PW5 is the daughter of the deceased and A-1. PW6 is the mother of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the first accused ill-treated the deceased Amudha during his matrimonial life and subjected her to harassment and mental cruelty ...