Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

R. Raghavan Vs. Dr. R.Venkitapathy and Others

Court: Chennai

The plaintiff/applicant has filed this application for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent No.5 to 7 from deciding the issue raised as per order dated 23.07.2012 pending disposal of the suit. 2.Theplaintiff/applicant filed a suit for declaration that the order of the defendant 5 to 7 dated 23.07.2012 is illegal and invalid, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents 5 to 7 from proceeding further in pursuant to the order dated 23.07.2012, and also for mandatory injunction. 3. 26.11.2012 is the next date of hearing before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant vehemently contend, that arbitration proceedings were started in pursuance to the reference made by this Court in OSA No.282 and 285 of 2006 as per memo filed by the parties. 4. That the reference was in terms of the memo filed by the parties, therefore, it is not open to the Arbitral tribunal to go beyond the scope of referen...

Dr. K. Vinoth Kumar Vs. Union Territory of Puducherry, Rep by the Chie ...

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 4th respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits and to count the service and fix pay of scale of the petitioner in the post of lecturer by taking into account of past service rendered by him by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 09.01.2012. ) The petitioner, who was working as a Guest Lecturer in the third respondent Pondicherry University Community College, which is a constituent college of the Pondicherry university, has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the 4th respondent University to regularise his services with effect from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits and to count his service and to fix pay of scale in the post of Lecturer by taking into account of his past services rende...

A. Ramalingam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Gov ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 5 to 6 to permit the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the academic year superannuation i.e. upto 31.05.2013 in the 6th respondent school with all consequential monetary and other service benefits. )The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, a P.G. Assistant in English, in the sixth respondent Higher Secondary School, is entitled to continue on re-employment, after his retirement on 31.07.2012, upto the end of the academic year viz. 31.05.2013.2. The petitioner joined the sixth respondent school on 18.02.1982. He rendered more than 30 years service as P.G. Assistant. He attained the age of superannuation on 10.07.2012. He sought re-employment to continue in the teaching assignment till the end of the academic year viz. 31.05.2013, based on the Government Orders.3. The sixth ...

M/S. Blue Whale Marine Services, Chennai and Others Vs. G. Poonam Chan ...

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, to refer the dispute, which is the subject matter of the suit, in C.S.No.10 of 2012 to arbitration as per Clause-20 of the Partnership Deed dated 14.10.2010. 2. The plaintiffs / non applicants filed a suit for dissolution of the 1stdefendant firm M/s.Blue Whale Marine Services and for a decree for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), being the share capital of the plaintiffs. The prayer is also to render true and proper accounts of the Firm as also of M/s.Tristar Logistics. 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 settled by recourse ...

Baskaran Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpora ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.332 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court), Dharapuram.) The son of the deceased, in a road accident, challenges the dismissal of his claim petition. 2. On 9.11.2001, Arumugam was knocked down by the State Transport Corporation bus. His son claimed compensation. The Tribunal relying on the evidence of the bus driver/R.W.1 concluded that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased and thus, dismissed the claim petition. Thus, the son appealed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence in proper perspective. Further, the Tribunal heavily relied on some news item in a Daily and the refer charge sheet of the Police. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the deceased was a Coolie and the appellant was depended upon him for his living. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respon...

Smt. K. Sahaja Rao Vs. State Bank of India Saifabad (Sib) Branch and A ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in I.A.No.809 of 2012 in AIR.No.668 of 2012 dated 14.08.2012 and to quash the same as non-reasoned, arbitrary and illegal.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. The writ petitioner is a borrower and the owner of the property which was given as security for the loan taken by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner intended to construct a building on the property by availing a bank loan and rent it for non-residential purpose. The Bank is stated to have granted this cash credit loan of an amount of Rs.340 lakhs, repayable in 23 months. 2. In the meantime, there appears to be a dispute pending in W.P.No.25368 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court as regards the permissible areas for construction. The petitioner states that on this account, the petitioner could not complete the construction within 23 months. Consequently, the...

C. Karunanidhi Vs. M. Shanthi and Another

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER : Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.2880 of 1999 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) This appeal by the injured in a road accident is for enhancement of compensation. 2. On 01.01.1999, the appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries in a road accident. For this, the Tribunal awarded him Rs.1,52,000/. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced and that has resulted in granting him very less compensation. 4. However, according to Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, a Panel Advocate of the New India Assurance Company Ltd., the Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant aspects and awarded him the necessary compensation. 5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record and the impugned award of the Tribunal. 6. At the time of accident, the appellant was 29 years old. He sustained multiple...

R. Govindasamy and Others Vs. the Additional Director General of Priso ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer in W.P.No.21473/2012:Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the First Respondent in No.39931/EW/2/2011 dated 28.10.2011 and quash the same and directing the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner as an Assistant Jailor. Prayer in W.P.No.23617/2012:Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 7.8.2012 by promoting the petitioners as Chief Head Warders in the Central Prison Salem. Prayer in W.P.Nos.23951 to 23960 of 2012:Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus seeking for a direction directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 16.8.2012, 11.8.2012, 16.8.201, 16.8.2012, 11.8.2012, 11.8.2012, 11.8.2012, 16.8.2012, 16.8.2012, and 11.8.2012, submitted by the petitioners for promotion as Assistant J...

M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Rep by Its Manager Law T. Dhandapani ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)CTC226

R. BANUMATHI, J. This application is filed to permit the petitioner Company Indian Oil Corporation Limited to withdraw the sum of Rs.5,30,00,000/- together with accrued interest. 2. During the course of business, Petitioner had entered into two separate fuel supply contract dated 23.7.1996 with the Respondent-M/s.NEPC India Limited and its sister concern M/s.Skyline NEPC Limited. Both M/s.NEPC India Limited and M/s.Skyline NEPC Limited fell into huge arrears under aircraft fuel account over a period of time. According to the Petitioner by 30.04.1997, the total arrears due from M/s.NEPC India Limited and M/s.Skyline NEPC Limited under aircraft fuel account accumulated to more than Rs.19.00 crores. For recovery of the said amount, Petitioner has filed three suits viz., C.S.No.425 of 1997; C.S.No.998 of 1999 and C.S.No.11 of 2007 respectively. 3. Since the Respondent Company and M/s.Skyline NEPC Limited committed default in clearing the outstanding amount, Petitioner-M/s.Indian Oil Corpor...

K.R. Rajeesh Kumar Vs. K. Nalini Raghavan and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)CTC297

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules against the order and decreetal order dated 13 September 2012 in Application No.3953 of 2012 in C.S.No.469 of 2008.) K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the order dated 13 September, 2012 in Application No.3953 of 2012 in C.S.No.469 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the application filed for including one item of property to the suit schedule for the purpose of partition. Facts in nutshell: 2. The appellant is the son of the first respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are his sister and brother respectively. The appellant filed a Civil Suit in C.S.No.469 of 2008 before the Original Side of this Court praying for passing a preliminary decree, to partition the plaint schedule property into four shares and to allot one such share to him. The Schedule to the plaint contains only one item of property, which is stated to be a residential house...