Chennai Court June 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Perumal and ors. Vs. E.indukumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.4.2007 passed in MCOP.No.349 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Bhavani.JUDGEMENT1. This appeal has been preferred by the dependants of deceased Jeyavelu, who lost his life in a road accident as against the Tribunal reducing their compensation amount.2. The Tribunal holding that Jeyavelu was guilty of contributory negligence, apportioned negligence in the ratio of 50 : 50 as between the deceased and the driver of the second respondent and deducted 50% of that amount from the total compensation of Rs.6,44,000/- and awarded them only Rs.3,22,000/-.3. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there was no evidence that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. In its judgment, the Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, however, subsequently, it had given a contra...
V.N.K.Natesan. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to take into consideration the temporary service rendered by the applicant in the temporary post from 16.10.1974 to 31.10.1980 in the light of the instructions contained in Lr.No.4/R.D.[E.4] 194 dated 12.01.1995 for the purpose of fixing the seniority of the applicant in the cadre of the Asst. Extension Officer for promotion as Dy. Block Development Officer by revising his seniority and grant him all consequential services and monetary benefits.O R D E R1. The petitioner after passing pre-university, got his name registered with the employment exchange. Subsequently, petitioner passed B.A. The petitioner was called for interview to the post of Junior Assistant, in the Trichy Collectorate. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Junior Assistant in Taluk Office, Mannapparai, where he served from 16.10.1974 to 07.01.1975.2. The petitioner, thereafter, served as Special Revenue Inspector ...
G.Vanitha Vs. the Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
PRAYER: This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.7278 of 2001 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the proceedings vide N.K.No.631/2000/P, dated 30.10.2001 of the Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.O R D E R1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order vide N.K.No.631/2000/P, dated 30.10.2001 passed by the Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.2. The father of the petitioner P.Gunasekaran was working as Sanitary Supervisor at Velur Town Panchayat who died in harness after rendering 15 years of service. At the time of his death, he left behind his wife, daughter (the petitioner), nine years old son and sixty one years old mother.3. In view of the fact that there was no earning member in the family, an application for compassionate appointment was made to give appointment to the petitioner. The request was accepted and the petitioner wa...
Ramesh Babu Vs. Margadarsi Chits (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2011 in E.P.No.568 of 2011 in ARC.No.2081 of 2004 passed by the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 28.02.2011 passed in E.P.No.568 of 2011 in ARC.No.2081 of 2004 by the learned X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:At the entertaining stage itself, this Court thought fit to hear the learned counsel for the petitioners on the revision petition. The revision petitioners herein were the judgment in debtors in E.P.No.568 of 2011 in ARC No.2081 of 2004, which was filed for executing the Award passed by the authority concerned. The Executing Court has rejected the objections raised by the revision petitioners herein and now proceeds with the E.P.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orde...
Mr.G.Vasudevan Vs. the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner's shop, premises of size 6' x 4' in Northern Side Platform of Municipal Bus Stand, Thiruvannamalai allotted as per the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.105, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 31.03.1995, except by due process of law and to direct the respondents to pay an adequate compensation to the petitioner for the destruction of bunk shop and other materials.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's bunk shop, located on the Northern Side Platform of the Municipal Bus Stand of the Thiruvannamalai Municipality, allotted as per the Government Order, dated 31.03.1995, passed in G.O.Ms.No.105, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department...
R.Vikram. Vs. the Manager Punjab National Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
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 pertaining to the order in letter dated 29.10.2010 passed by the 1st respondent quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to sanction the petitioner forthwith educational loan as per the bonafide certificate issued by the 2nd respondent for I and II year of MBA Course in 2nd respondent college.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. There is no appearance on behalf of the second respondent.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the letter, dated 29.10.2010, issued by the first respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the grant of educational loan.3. The reason stated in the impugned letter issued by the first respondent is that the petitioner had failed in many papers and had complete...
V.Subramaniam. Vs. the Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Writ Appeal No.2320 of 2003 has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21.2.2003, made in W.P.No.6485 of 2001.Writ Petition No.2905 of 1996 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Clause 22 of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995 as illegal and unconstitutional insofar as it forfeits the entire past service of an employee on resignation and consequently direct the third respondent herein to pay the petitioner full pension as in the case of voluntary retirement, in accordance with the Scheme, with interest, with effect from 1.11.1993.COMMON JUDGMENTELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.1. Whether an employee of a Bank/Insurance Company, who tendered his 'resignation' to the services of the organisation, is entitled to pension under the respective Pension Regulations, as if he had 'voluntarily retired' from service is the question involved in both ...
P.Fancy Suganthi Bai. Vs. the Secretary to Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, for the relief as stated therein.O R D E R1. The petitioner has projected the present Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Proceedings Letter No.9009A/SC2(1)/04, dated 18.11.2005 and to quash the same. Further, the petitioner has also sought a direction to be issued to the respondents to direct them to allot No.6, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, to her.2. According to the petitioner, she is residing at Door No.A6, Police Quarters, SIDCO Housing Quarters, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058, since 1985. The quarters was originally allotted to her father, who retired from service as Police Constable. From the year 1993, she is working in Ambattur Industrial Estate at M/s.Pack Tech. System and Equipments.3. The case of the petitioner is ...
Mrs.S.Ambigadevi Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the second respondent in not selecting the petitioner in any one of the posts, earmarked for the destitute widow in the Notification/Advertisement No.176 and 178, issued in respect of combined subordinate services and appoint pursuant to its Notification/Advertisement No.176 and 178, for the combined subordinate services is null and void and consequently, to direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner to any of the posts earmarked/reserved for the destitute widow in the Notification/Advertisement No.176 and 178 issued in respect of combined subordinate services, in the vacant/unfilled post evenafter the publication of the result.O R D E R1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the second respondent, in not selecting the petitioner, in any one of the posts, earmarked for destitute wi...
Jaganathan. Vs. Sanjeeva Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
PRAYER: Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2004 made in MCOP No.333 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.J U D G M E N T1. The 2nd respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.333 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,(Principal District Judge), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, who has been shown as owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal directing him to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased in the road accident.2. The vehicle involved in this case is a tractor. Admittedly, since there was no insurance for the vehicle, the claimants have sought for compensation from the appellant alleging him the owner of the vehicle and his driver had caused the accident in which their son had died.3. On 04.10.1996, at about 9.15 a.m., on the Arur Salem main road, near Nachinampatti Junction, one Dhanapal, came driven his Hero Honda Bike. At that time...
- ‹ Prev
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- Next ›
- Last »