Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-09-2004
Reported in : [2004(101)FLR963]; (2004)IILLJ962Mad; (2004)2MLJ198
d. murugesan, j.1. the appellant in w.a. no: 1476 of 2001 was a conductor in the respondent corporation since 20.06.1975. he was on duty on 14.09.1991 in the bus belonging to the respondent corporation plying between manjur to coimbatore. when the bus was checked at 7.30 p.m. at athikadavu by the officials of the respondent corporation, it was found that the appellant had collected rs.2.40 towards ticket fare for the distance between kethai and athikadavu from 22 passengers; for 3 passengers he had issued appropriate tickets, however, for the remaining 19 passengers he had issued tickets of rs.1.40 instead of rs.2.40. according to the officials of the respondent corporation, the appellant had collected rs.2.40 from the rest of the 19 passengers also. it was also found that the appellant has not filled the invoice regarding the collection of fares before the next stage. hence, a charge memo dated 16.09.1991 was issued to the appellant calling upon his explanation. appellant, though submitted his explanation, did not refute the charges in full. an amended charge memo dated 08.10.1991 was also issued to the appellant.2. not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered. on behalf of the respondent corporation one witness was examined and on behalf of the appellant he himself was alone examined. the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31.12.1991 holding that the charges are proved. the enquiry officer took note of the fact that though a witness was examined on the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-10-2004
Reported in : 2006ACJ733; (2005)1MLJ20
p.k. misra, j.1. the claim petition was filed by the present respondent no. 1, on the following allegations :-the claimant was the pillion rider on a scooter bearing registration no. pyr 1446 which was proceeding towards cuddalore from pondicherry on 17.3.1993. lorry bearing registration no. tnv 9787 belonging to the present respondent no. 2 was coming from opposite direction and hit against the scooterist. the claimant was thrown out of the scooter and sustained several injuries including multiple injuries in his right forearm as well as fracture of both bones of his right leg. he was treated in government hospital, cuddalore initially and subsequently at madras institute of orthopaedics and traumatology as well as vijaya health centre, madras. he had undergone treatment as in-patient at vijaya health centre, madras for 45 days and underwent surgery of both the bones of his forearm on 20.3.1993 and orif olecranon on 25.3.1993 and nailing of tibia on 6.4.1993. subsequently, he continued treatment as out-patient from 29.4.1993 to 16.6.1993 and was readmitted as in-patient on 10.6.1993 for bone grafting and continued as in-patient till 24.6.1993. it was also indicated in the claim petition that he was continuing to undergo treatment even at the time of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 19.7.1993. the claimant was a national athlete and had secured many medals in school, college, state and national level competitions. even though the claimant had estimated a sum of rs. 10 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-05-2004
Reported in : (2004)1MLJ628
orderp.d. dinakaran, j.1. the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records pertaining to the notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act (for brevity 'the act') made in g.o.ms.no.495, housing and urban development l.a.3(2), dated 14.11.1996, published in the tamil nadu government gazette on 18.12.196, and the declaration madein g.o.ms.no.442, housing and urban development department l.a.3(2), dated 23.12.1997 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned.2. it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the land of an extent of one acre comprised in survey no.5/2b in vellakinar village, which is sought to be acquired pursuant to the notification issued under section 4(1) of the act dated 14.11.1996, which was published in the tamil nadu government gazette on 18.12.1996, in the local daily, on 3.1.1997 and in the locality on 6.1.1997. however, it appears that the petitioner had submitted his objections only on 21.3.1997, which is beyond the period of 30 days from the last date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the act, which was published in the locality on 6.1.1997, as mentioned above.3. it is true an enquiry under section 5a of the act was held on 6.3.1997 and 31.3.1997, wherein the petitioner was furnished with the remarks of the acquisition authority and thereafter, a declaration under section 6 of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-07-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Mad387
ordert.v. masilamani, j.1. heard the learned counsel for both sides.2. the revision petitioner is the decree-holder/plaintiff in o.s.no.461 of 1980 on the file of the district munsif, poonamallee. he filed the execution petition in e.p.no.587 of 1981 on the file of the district munsif, poonamallee for delivery of the property as per the decree and since the second respondent obstructed the delivery sought for by the decree-holder in e.a.no.800 of 1985, he filed the petition in e.a.no.1390 of 1985 under order 21 rule 97 and section 151 c.p.c. for removal of obstruction and delivery of possession of the property. since the said application was not filed within 30 days under article 129 of the limitation act, the executing court dismissed the same. hence the revision petitioner preferred the revision against the said order in c.r.p.no.816 of 1997. at the time of admission stage itself, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court rejected the same by an order dated 31.7.1997 and ordered notice of motion in this revision.3. the only question to be decided in this revision petition is whether the revision is maintainable in law in view of the provision under order 21 rule 103 c.p.c. for the simple reason that there had been an adjudication made under order 21 rule 98 c.p.c. by the executing court in the impugned order in e.a.no.800 of 1985 wherein it was held that since the decree-holder is not entitled to maintain the petition in e.a.no.1390 of 1985 for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-17-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC508; (2004)3MLJ7
orders. sardar zackria hussain, j. 1. the landlady is the revision petitioner. the revision is filed against the order of the learned rent control appellate authority allowing the r.c.a. no. 92 of 1997 filed by the tenant against the eviction ordered by the learned rent controller on the ground of own use and occupation in respect of the petition residential premises.2. the landlady filed the rent control original petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for 8 months from december, 1991 to july, 1992 at the rate of rs. 450/- per month and that the petition premises is required bona fide for own use and occupation with her family members and stating that she is residing in the rented building.3. the rent control original petition was opposed by the respondent/tenant by filing counter, in which it is stated that even during lifetime of the landlady's father rajagopal naidu, he was owning other buildings in which he was residing in one of such buildings and the revision petitioner is also residing in her own building and therefore, the requirement of the petition premises for own use and occupation is without bona fide. it is further stated that the respondent has not committed default wilfully in payment of rent as claimed by the revision petitioner/landlady. since rival claims were made for the rents by the legal heirs on the death of rajagopal naidu, the respondent/tenant was unable to ascertain as to whom the rent is to be paid and therefore, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-22-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC325
ordern. dhinakar, j.1. the appellant is the petitioner in w.p.no. 12916 of 1994 and he challenges the order of the learned single judge dated 16.4.2001. the writ petition was filed challenging the order of the revisional authority dated 30.6.1994 by which, the order of the assistant settlement officer, dated 15.7.1974 was set aside and the property in dispute was treated as p.w.d. tank poramboke. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the revisional authority has properly exercised his powers and it needs no interference, which is being challenged in the present writ appeal.2. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the revisional authority had no powers to exercise suo motu revision to set aside the order of the assistant settlement officer dated 15.7.1974.3. per contra, the learned special government pleader submits that the power is vested in the revisional authority to exercise suo motu revision under section 15 of the tamil nadu (transferred territory) ryotwari settlement act, 1964 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the act').4. we have carefully considered the contentions and perused the materials. the point for consideration is whether the revisional authority has powers to exercise suo motu revision on a petition filed by a third party, who is not a party before the assistant settlement officer.5. the materials placed before us show that on 15.7.1994, the assistant settlement officer passed an order holding that the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-24-2004
Reported in : 2004(5)CTC595
m. karpagavinayagam, j.1. the notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act was published on 25.6.1986 for the public purpose, namely the acquisition of lands for the erection of 230 k.v. sub-station by the tamil nadu electricity board in the lands at arasur village, coimbatore, acquiring 26.21 acres in s.f.no.57/3.c, etc.2. the land acquisition officer in his award dated 15.7.1989, awarded the compensation at the rate of rs.11,682/- per acre, even though the claim made by the land owners was at rs.1,50,000/- per acre. on reference, the sub-court, by its award dated 28.10.1993 in l.a.o.p.no.61 of 1992, enhanced the compensation at rs.1,000/- per cent. aggrieved by the same, the referring officer, namely the revenue divisional officer has filed this appeal.3. though the appeal has been filed on the ground that the quantum of compensation enhanced is arbitrary and without any basis, learned additional government pleader would ultimately submit that even assuming that the quantum of compensation was correctly decided by the sub-court, the developmental charges at 33% from the total compensation had not been deducted, despite the mandatory guidelines given by the supreme court in various decisions.4. learned additional government pleader would cite the following authorities in support of his submissions:(a) : (1995)5scc422 (hasanali khanbhai & sons and others vs . state of gujarat); (b) : air1995sc2481 (k.vasundara devi vs . revenue divisional officer (lao); (c) : .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-2004
Reported in : 2004(5)CTC335
ordern. kannadasan, j.1. heard the learned government advocate appearing on criminal side.2. the above petition is filed for the relief as stated therein.3. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though a specific complaint is lodged, the respondent-police has not registered the said complaint and pursuing with the investigation. the learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decisions of the apex court with regard to the powers of the police officer under section 154, cr. p.c. pertaining to the information received in cognizable cases.4. per contra, the learned government advocate (crl. side) would contend that even though the petitioner was directed to appear for an enquiry, he has not co-operated and further action need to be pursued.5. i have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties.6. the main grievances of the petitioner herein is that even though the complaint preferred by him clearly makes put a case of cognizable in nature, there is no justification on the part of the respondent-police in holding an enquiry without even registering fir. a perusal of the complaint discloses that the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted. the apex court in its decision in mohindro v. state of punjab, 2002 scc (cri) 1087, while interpreting the provision under section 154 cr. p.c. has observed that the concerned police officer should register a case if a case is made out on the basis of the averment contained in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-22-2004
Reported in : 2004(5)CTC744
ordera. kulasekaran, j.1. the prayer in this writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in ref. no. pu/ce/e14/03-04 dated 29.9.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to evaluate the papers of the petitioner with reference to all the examinations and declare the results therefor.2. the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner joined the third respondent medical college in the year 2002-2003. he was a rank holder and he secured 92.6% of marks in the indian certificate of secondary education examinations, 1999 and school topper in pine hall school, dehradun. the petitioner has written second year m.b.b.s. examination on 24.5.2004 to 3.6.2004 in the third respondent premises and his registration number was 226375066. on 1.6.2004, when he was writing microbiology paper ii examination for a duration of two hours, he attended two essays and two or three short questions, the invigilator stopped him from writing the said examination on the ground that some extra papers namely xerox copy was found below his desk. the invigilator obtained his signature in the said extra paper and sent him out immediately much earlier before the expiry of two hours. it is stated that the petitioner is neither the owner of the said printed extra paper nor copied it; that along with the petitioner, three other students occupied the same desk in which two from first year and one from .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-28-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)CTC596; (2005)1MLJ317
ordera. kulasekaran, j.1. mr. p.s. jayakumar, learned government advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents.2. the petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in no. na.ka.3795/2004/a1 dated 09-12-2004 and quash the same.3. the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner is an elected president of pappireddypatti village panchayat; that a special audit of the said panchayat was conducted by the second respondent for the year 2003-2004 and based on the audit report, the first respondent issued a notice under section 205 of the tamil nadu panchayats act, 1994 (hereinafter called as the act) calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation by notice dated 01-09-2004 and copies of the audit report also served on the petitioner; that the petitioner has sent his explanation dated 14-09-2004 to the first respondent. not satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent issued the impugned communication dated 09-12-2004 under section 205 (3) of the act directing the tahsildar to convene a meeting for consideration of the notice and explanation, if any and the proposal for the removal of the petitioner, at the office of the village panchayat at a time appointed by the tahsildar.4. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the audit was conducted invoking rule 2 of the tamil nadu panchayats (surcharge, disallowance .....Tag this Judgment!