Chennai Court June 2012 Judgments
New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Farisha Iqbal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
PRAYERAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 24.10.08 passed in M.A.C.O.P.No. 873 of 2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Madurai.JUDGMENTB.RAJENDRAN, J.1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this Appeal challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal granting an amount of Rs.22,47,500/-.2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant restricted his argument towards the quantum alone. The accident is admitted. The liability is admitted. According to the appellant, in the accident took place, the deceased V.K.H.Mohammed Ali Iqbal was driving his vehicle and a lorry coming from the opposite direction came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the van, which was driven by the deceased. The deceased died on the spot.3. The Lower Court after examining the witnesses ultimately came to the conclusion that the deceased was entitled to the compensatio...
Tag this Judgment!Jeyaraj. Vs. the State Rep. by
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
Revision preferred under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment, dated 04.06.2010 made in C.A.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge / FTC, Periyakulam, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 20.01.2010 made in S.C.No.131 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthamapalayam.ORDER1. The criminal revision has been preferred under Section 397 r/w 401 IPC, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in Judgment, dated 04.06.2010 made in C.A.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge / FTC, Periyakulam, whereby confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 20.01.2010 made in S.C.No.131 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthamapalayam.2. As per the prosecution case, on 21.02.1999 at about 2 a.m, the revision petitioner / accused, Jayaraj along with one Mariappan and Raja with an intention of committing robbery entered into the Forest Office (Lower camp), Gud...
Tag this Judgment!G.Mohan Vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent not to make payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land and building of the Food Corporation of India (South Zone) Employees Co-operative Society Limited, MSCS/CR 23/96 situated at 114/171, Prakasam Salai, Chennai 600 106 to the third respondent his man or to any other persons till a new board of directors are elected and assume office.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, claiming that he is one of the members of the Food Corporation of India (South Zone) Employees Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the society) praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the Chennai Metro Rail Limited, the first respondent herein, not to make the paymen...
Tag this Judgment!A.Vanita Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent Teachers Recruitment Board to consider petitioner candidature for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher under the Schedule Caste or Priority category or General Turn as per its Notification No.2/2011 dated 09.11.2011 by calling her for certificate verification.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the only reason for not considering the name of the petitioner for certificate verification is that she had been selected for appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 2008-2009. After such selection, the petitioner had not opted to join duty, as a Secondary Grade Teacher. In such...
Tag this Judgment!C.P.ChitrA. Vs. K.Myilsamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
Prayer :-Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order dated 20.11.2008 in M.C.No.20 of 2007, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode District and to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance to the petitioner as claimed in the above revision.ORDER1. The revision petitioner herein / petitioner has preferred the present revision against the order passed in M.C.No.20 of 2007, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode District, dated 20.11.2008, dismissing her petition for monthly maintenance and has prayed to set-aside the said order.2. The petitioner / wife's case is as follows:-The petitioner / wife married the respondent/husband on 11th April 1984 at Gopi Seetha Marriage Hall as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, both of them lived in their matrimonial home at the husband's place situated at Punchai Pulliampatti, Kanuvukarai Village. Out of wedlock, a male child was born to them, who was named as ...
Tag this Judgment!S.Rajavelu Vs. the Director of School Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
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 amend the petitioner's date of birth as 26-10-1992 in the Transfer Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent bearing No.209/10-11 in pursuance of the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 27-01-2011 bearing Na.Ka.No.10/2011.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the third respondent had rectified the Date of Birth of the petitioner, as 26.10.1992, in the relevant school records, instead of 26.10.1993. He had further submitted that, based on the said rectification, the second respondent would also make the necessary corrections in the relevant records. Thereafter, the records would be issu...
Tag this Judgment!T.Neelamma Vs. Shanthamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 29.6.2011 passed by the Sub-Court, Hosur, in I.A.No.89 of 2009 in A.S.No.23 of 2009.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the order dated 29.6.2011 passed by the Sub-Court, Hosur, in I.A.No.89 of 2009 in A.S.No.23 of 2009, this revision petition has been filed.2. The long and short of the germane facts, in a few broad stroke, can be encapsulated thus:(i) The suit O.S.No.64 of 2002 was filed by as many as six plaintiffs, namely, 1.Nanjundappa, 2.Shanthamma, 3.Parvathamma, 4.Siddaraj, 5.Kumar and 6.Nagaraj, as against the sole defendant-Neelamma/the revision petitioner herein. The suit was ultimately dismissed.(ii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the appeal was filed only by plaintiffs 2 and 3 by figuring themselves as appellants 1 and 2 and arraying the defendant as R1 and the original remaining plaintiffs 1, 4 to 6 as respondents 2 to 5. An application in I.A.NO.89 of 2009 also was filed with the following prayer:"to per...
Tag this Judgment!E.Sivananth Vs. the Chairman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.46896/EW1/2010 dated 22.03.2011 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment order and training to the petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable/Jail Warden/Fire Servicemen for the year 2010.ORDER1. Seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.46896/EW1/2010 dated 22.03.2011, quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue appointment order and training to him to the post of Grade II Police Constable/Jail Warden/Fire Serviceman for the year 2010, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavit accompanying this petition, would run thus :(i) The petitioner has passed 12th Standard in th...
Tag this Judgment!M.Jeyaprakas Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
PRAYERWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to seal and the close down the 9th respondent's saw mill installed in the premises of 7th respondent and further directing the 4th and 5th respondents to disconnect the electricity connection of the 9th respondent's saw mill fraudulently got connected from the 8th respondent's residentially electricity connection and further directing the 1st to 6th respondents to take appropriate action against the 7th, 8th and 9th respondents based on the 6th respondent's proceedings in No.L/5238/11 dated 04.01.2012 and also based on the petitioner representation dated 11.01.2012 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble court.ORDERB.RAJENDRAN, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this Petition praying to direct the first and second respondents to seal and close down the 9th respondent's saw mill installed in the premises of 7t...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company. Vs. Marimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2012
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award made in M.C.O.P. No.164 of 2009 dated 20.02.2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Sivagangai.JUDGMENT1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the multiplier adopted in the quantification of compensation. The legal representatives of the deceased-Shanmugam Pillai has filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,34,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition.2. It is the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and the age of the deceased was 56 years. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses and arrived at the annual dependency at Rs.24,000/-. Adopting the multiplier of 8 and taking the age of the deceased a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »