Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree, dated 31.10.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.549 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Court), Dharmapuri. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree, dated 10.09.2014, made in M.C.O.P.No.253 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Special District Court), Dharmapuri. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree, dated 22.08.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.4193 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (2nd Court of Small Causes), Chennai.) Common Judgment: S. Manikumar, J. 1. C.M.A.No.3273 of 2014 is preferred by M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem, challenging the compensation of Rs.25,61,000/-, awarded to legal representatives of the deceased, in M.C.O.P.No.549 of 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the fair and decreetral order of the Learned II Additional Principal Judge, Chennai dated 05.07.2012 passed in O.P.No.2890 of 2007.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant/Respondent has focused the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the order dated 05.07.2012 in O.P.No.2890 of 2007 passed by the Learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. 2. The Learned II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, while passing the impugned order on 05.07.2012 in O.P.No.2890 of 2007 [filed by the Respondent/Petitioner (Husband) under Section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] at paragraphs 19 and 20 had observed the following: 19. In order to strengthen the case of the petitioner, the parents his mother and father were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. They too deposed the cruel and the inhuman acts of the respondent not only towards the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.45446 of 2006, wherein, the order dated 30.01.2006 passed by the 1st respondent refusing to refer the dispute raised by the appellant Association for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was challenged. 2. The appellant Association claims that it is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975, which is evident from the Certificate of Registration furnished in the typed set of papers. It further claims that their Association is registered under the provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1926. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, its members are employed under the direct and effective control of the Management of the ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) Limited, as contract labourers. It is the strong contention of the appellant Association that though the nomenclature used to describe their employees is 'cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Order No.455 of 2007, dated 20.04.2007, on the file of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai 600 006.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No.455 of 2007, dated 20.04.2007, passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai 600 006. The Tribunal, while setting aside the Order-in-Original No.31 of 2000, dated 31.03.2000, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Madras-1, directed him, to give option to the 1st respondent, for redemption of gold seized, against payment of fine. 2. Facts leading to the appeal are that on 17.09.1999, the 1st respondent, who arrived by Singapore Airlines Flight SQ 410/17.09.99, at Anna International Airport, Chennai, was intercepted by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai. He showed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that the appointments made by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 31.1.2016, appointing respondents 4 to 14 as Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are illegal, ab initio void and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Constitutional provisions and, therefore, consequently to hold that respondents 4 to 14 have no authority to hold the posts of Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and consequently to declare the post as vacant. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the appointment of respondents 3 to 13 as Members of the TNPSC made in G.O.(Ms.) (3) No.9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 31.1.2016 issued by the first respondent as illegal and against Constitutional manda...
Tag this Judgment!