Chennai Court September 2012 Judgments
Subbammal and Others Vs. Thirumoorthy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
(PRAYER:- Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2007 made in MCOP No.214 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I), Erode.) The appellants are the dependents of one Pappusamy, who died in a road accident, for whose death, the Tribunal had awarded them Rs.3,74,200/-. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since there are 4 dependents, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3 from the income of the deceased. On the whole, the Tribunal had awarded them less compensation. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal had taken into account all the relevant factors and awarded them proper compensation. 4. The deceased died when he was 58 years old. The Tribunal had adopted the multiplier '8'. It had assessed his income at Rs.5,581/- p.m. From that, it had deducted 1/3 and took the balance to assess loss of dependency. 5. In SMT.SARALA VERMA and ...
Tag this Judgment!Asha Kiran Vs. the State Transport Authority, Chepauk
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent and his Subordinates, namely, All Regional Transport Officers, Motor Vehicle Inspectors to accept Motor Vehicles Tax for Tamil Nadu at the rate of 1/10th of quarterly tax or one month tax or one quarter tax when tendered voluntarily by the petitioner or in advance for 7days or 30 days or 90 days use in Tamil Nadu Instead of collecting 7 days tax per entry in to Tamil Nadu in respect of the Petitioner's Vehicle-KA-01/AA-7056.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the issues involved in this writ petition are covered by the order of this Court, dated 24.4.2007 made in W.P.Nos.15061 to 15063 of 2007, and the order , dated 27.04.2011, pass...
Tag this Judgment!D.Thangaraj and Another Vs. Devika and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 09.04.2010 in O.A.No.1154 of 2009 on the file of the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and quash the same.) COMMON ORDER M.VENUGOPAL, J. The Petitioners have preferred W.P.No.27592 of 2010 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 09.04.2010 in O.A.No.1154 of 2009 on the file of the 5th Respondent/Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and to quash the same. The Petitioners have filed W.P.No.28256 of 2010 praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 09.04.2010 in O.A.No.1154 of 2009 on the file of the 4th Respondent/Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai and to quash the same. 2. The Central Administrative Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vaiapuri Vs. the Regional Transport Authority Namakkal District and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling Calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in Appeal No.154 of 2009 dated 22.2.2010 in confirming the order of the 1st respondent made in R.No.26492/A2/2009 dated 14.7.2009 rejecting the application for grant of variation in respect of the stage carriage of the petitioner plying on the route KARUR to Karavalli and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner on merits and grant the same in accordance with law.) ORDER 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22 February 2010 in Motor Vehicle Appeal No.154 of 2009 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai remanding the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal to consider the variation application afresh without indicating the legal effect of deletion of Explanation to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Prov...
Tag this Judgment!C.Balakrishnan Lr.S. and Others Vs. Thittakavi Anantha Padmanabhamoort ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(Common Prayer: Appeals Suits are filed under Section 96 of CPC praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2004 passed in O.S.No.4681 of 1997 on the file of II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.) COMMON JUDGMENT In view of the inter-connectivity of the above proceedings, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties were heard simultaneously and this common judgment is rendered. 2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties are mentioned as referred to in the plaint. 3. Following are the allegations in short available in the plaint:- 3(a). The first plaintiff is son of Dittakavi Veerabhadra Murthy. The second plaintiff is son of Kandukuri Rama Krishna Rao and the third plaintiff is son of Kandukuri Pulla Rao. The second and third plaintiffs are represented by their power of attorney K.V.S.Prasad. The property situate in Plot No.A4A, S.No.96 part and 97 part of Kodambakkam Village, measuring about 3 grounds and 480 sq.ft. more fully described in the s...
Tag this Judgment!G. Prashanthi Vs. the Tamil Nadu Dr. Mgr Medical University, Rep. by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to re-value the petitioner's answer sheet in the Minor Oral Surgery and Trauma in the MDS (Oral and Maxillo Facial Surgery) examination conducted by the first and second respondents in April, 2012.) ORDER 1. Petitioner, who appeared for MDS Examinations held in April, 2012, is praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing Dr.MGR Medical University, to re-value her answer paper in the subject Minor Oral Surgery and Trauma in MDS (Oral and Maxillo Facial Surgery Br.) Examination. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner passed BDS Examinations in MS Ramiah Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, and she joined in the third respondent Self-financing Dental College in MDS (Oral and Maxillo Facial Surgery Br.) course. The third respondent college is affiliated to Dr.MGR Medical University...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumar Vs. Shanmugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.07.2009 in I.A.No.142 of 2009 in O.S.No.117 of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode.) ORDER 1. The Petitioner/Defendant has projected the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 03.07.2009 in I.A.No.142 of 2009 in O.S.No.117 of 2008 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode. 2. The Learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, while dismissing I.A.No.142 of 2009 in O.S.No.117 of 2008 on 03.07.2009, has, among other things, held that 'Moreover, in the written statement filed by the defendant, the signature of the defendant has been admitted and only thing averred is that plaintiff has concocted the document by using the papers containing signatures of defendant. So when the signature is admitted, this petition to appoint Commissioner to take the document to the expert for his opinion does not arise'. 3. According to the Learned Counsel...
Tag this Judgment!M.Kesavan Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Tneb, Cedc, Central and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the entire records in pursuant to the rejection order issued by the 1st respondent in Lr.No.SE/CEDC/C/AEE/GL/TT/F/DOC.D/2456, dated 20.12.2011 and the assessment order in Lr.No.EE/OandM/T.N/CEDC/C/AE/R.46/F.APTS/D.190/08 dated 24.01.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent and demand notice in Lr.No.AEE/OandM/TPT/FTOE/D.No.836/2008, dated 14.02.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash all of them.) The petitioner runs an Engineering Industry in the name and style of "M/s.Globe Industries" at Teynampet, Chennai. The Anti-power Theft Squad of the respondent Board inspected the premises of the petitioner's industry on 31.12.1983. In the inspection, they found that the departmental seal on the Electric Meter was replaced with bogus seals. Based on the same, a criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner. Ultimately, the criminal case ended in acquittal on 30.01.2006. 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Muralidharan @ Murali Vs. A.Prakasam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and decree dated 27.02.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.298 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl.District Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.I), Erode.) R.BANUMATHI,J. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,10,556/- awarded in M.C.O.P.No.298 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode for the personal injuries sustained by the claimant, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal. 2. On 27.11.2003, at about 12.15 p.m, claimant - Muralidharan was proceeding in his TVS Victor Motor bike bearing Regn.No.TN 33 AA 0590 along with one Mukesh Lahoti, a pillion rider. When the claimant was proceeding from East to West in Erode - Chithode main road and nearing Mamarathupalayam - Ellappalayam road intersection, the van bearing Regn.No.TN 27H 5346 driven in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and hit the claimant along with the bike. Claim...
Tag this Judgment!Banumathi Vs. Chellammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2012
(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order in I.A.No.353 of 2011 in O.S.No.318 of 2007 on 23.2.2012 by the District Munsif, Uthukottai, Tiruvallur District.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.318 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthukottai, is the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner/ plaintiff filed the suit for partition of her 1/3rd share in the suit properties. In the plaint she mentioned about the settlement deed executed by her father in favour of her brother namely the 2nd defendant and giving all the properties to the 2nd defendant. Nevertheless, she did not pray for declaration that the settlement deed is not valid. The respondents/ defendants also filed a statement stating that without a prayer for setting aside the settlement deed, the suit for partition will not be maintainable. Thereafter, when the case was about to be listed for trial ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »