Chennai Court December 1993 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.
T. Kesavan and Another Vs. D. Parvatham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas269(Mad)
Pratap Singh J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 50 of 1990 and C.C. No. 51 of 1990 have filed these petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to call for the records and to quash the same. 2. The allegations in the complaint C.C. No. 51 of 1993, are similar to the allegations made in the complaint in C.C. No. 50 of 1990. 3. The allegations in C.C. No. 50 of 1990 are briefly as follows : The respondent has filed complaints against the petitioners for offences under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which I shall hereinafter refer to as Act. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : For payment of the amount due for purchase of maida, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 7,300 on September 25, 1984, to the complainant. The said complainant presented the cheque for encashment on November 27, 1984. It was returned by the bankers on November 28, 1984, with the endorsement 'refer to drawer'. The complainant contacted the accused several times and...
Muniappa Reddiar Vs. Ganesa Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ494
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The landlord under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has filed this revision petition against the order dated 4.10.1991 in his petition C.D.P. No. 296 of 1985 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore. By the said order dated 4.10.1991, the Special Deputy Collector dismissed the said C.D.P. filed under Section 3(4)(a) of the Act for ejectment of the respondents-tenants from the petition land on the ground of arrears of rent for ten years, that is from 1977 to 1987. Originally by order dated 21.12.1989, the said revenue court, in the said petition computed the arrears due at Rs. 6,000 and gave time to the tenants to pay the said sum to the landlord in four instalments as follows:(1) Rs. 1,500 on 20.1.1990(2) Rs. 1,500 on 20.2.1990(3) Rs. 1,500 on 20.3.1990(4) Rs. 1,500 on 20.4.1990The said order also stipulated that if the payment is not made accordingly, necessary steps would...
R. Shankar Vs. City Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas248(Mad)
Pratap Singh J. 1. The accused in C.C. No. 6477 of 1993 on the file of the XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The accused is a card member of the complainant-bank and using that card, the accused purchased goods on credit. When the bills were raised by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque drawn in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 7,500. The cheque was presented by the complainant. It was returned unpaid by the bank on May 11, 1993, for the reason 'insufficient funds'. The complainant immediately issued notice to the accused on May 12, 1993. The accused had ...
S. Krishnamoorthy Vs. B.S. Kesavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas755(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in C.C. Nos. 6856, 6857, 6858, 6932 and 6933 of 1991 on the file of the VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, has filed these petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same. 2. Criminal Original Petition No. 2515 of 1992 is concerned with C.C. No. 6856 of 1991. In it, the respondent herein had filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : 3. In respect of the loan borrowed under an agreement dated December 28, 1990, for the value of Rs. 25,000 to pay in five equal monthly instalments for the dues, the accused issued the cheques on Central Bank of India, Sowcarpet, dated April 28, 1991 and May 28, 1991, each of the value of Rs. 5,000. When the cheques were presented for payment on September 16, 1991, t...
Amra Press by Managing Partner M. Swaminathan and anr. Vs. Md. Muneeru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ479
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of eviction dated 23.12.1988 passed by the Rent Controller (XIX Judge, Court of Small Causes) in R.C.O.P. No. 3348 of 1988. A copy of the order has been made available in the typed set of papers and it is seen from the said order that the order of eviction has been made ex parte on examining the witness for the petitioner alone, on account of the absence of the respondent in the eviction petition. This revision petition has been filed on the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application that the petitioners came to know of the passing of the order of eviction when notice was received in the execution proceedings in E.P. No. 229 of 1989. It is also stated in the affidavit which only explains the circumstances under which the petitioners have come to this Court with this revision, that notices in the eviction petition were received b...
S. Anthony Raj and Another Vs. A. Shanmugam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas531(Mad); (1995)IILLJ1208Mad
Mishra, J. 1. The first respondent has filed C.A. No. 206 of 1992 and C.A. No. 207 of 1992, the first in his individual capacity and the second in his capacity as the vice-president of the Madras Pen and Ink Factories Workers' Union. A learned single judge of this court has in the applications held that (i) the workmen, who become secured creditors by operation of law from the date of the winding up order, have a pari passu charge over the security which is held by the secured creditors under the contract; (ii) the cut-off date for arriving at the ratio at which the sale proceeds should be divided on a pari passu basis as per section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956, should be the date of the winding up order and not the date of sale; and (iii) the workmen are entitled to claim interest from the date of the winding up order till the date of realisation of security. He (the learned single judge) has set aside the order of the official liquidator determining the closure compensation and th...
Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT201(Mad)
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition read as follows :- '................ to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to direct the Assistant Collector of Customs, Duty Draw Back Department, Customs House, Madras - 600 001, to pass appropriate and suitable orders of refund on the claim for duty draw back made by the Petitioner on 31-3-1981. .....' 2. The petitioner is a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking. The Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise reported in : 1992(61)ELT3(SC) , under similar circumstances, has held as follows :- 'We direct that the Government of India shall set up a committee consisting representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and Public Sector Undertakings in between themselves, ...
South Indian Bank Ltd. Represented HereIn by Its Dy. Gen. Manager, Reg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ1171Mad
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J. 1. The prayer in W. P. No. 13749 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent from proceeding with the Appeal in T. S. E. No. 10 of 1993, filed by the second respondent and pending on the file of the first respondent. 2. The prayer in W. P. No. 13750 of 1993 is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in I. A. No. 5 of 1993 in T. S. E. No. 10 of 1993 in the file of the first respondent dated 14.6.1993 and to quash the same and to forebear the first from proceeding with the Appeal in T. S. E. No. 10 of 1993. 3. After hearing Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prakash for the second respondent, the short print point which falls for consideration is, whether the order of the first respondent-appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act condoning the delay of 1384 days in filing the appeal can be justified or upheld. 4. Though the question o...
The South Indian Bank Limited Represented HereIn by It Deputy General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ45
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in W.P. No. 13749 of 1993 is for the issue of writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent from proceeding with the Appeal in T.S.E No. 10 of 1993, filed by the second respondent and pending on the file of the first respondent.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 13750 of 1993 is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in I.A. No. 5 of 1993 in T.S.E No. 10 of 1993 in the file of the first respondent dated 14.6.1993 and to quash the same and to forbear the first respondent from proceeding with the Appeal in T.S.E. No. 10 of 1993.3. Ater hearing Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prakash for the second respondent, the short print point which falls for consideration is, whether the order of the first respondent-appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act condoning the delay of 1384 days in filing the appeal can be justified or upheld.4. Though the question of juri...
Sajitha G. Vs. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Exter ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad204
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the application, bearing Roll No. 74049 of the petitioner for M.B.B.S. Course under the 'Self Financing Foreign Students Scheme' for the year 1992- 93 and select the students on the basis of the marks obtained and allot a seat to the petitioner.2. The petitioner was born in Malaysia and had her schooling at Salem, Tamil Nadu and she had completed the Higher Secondary Examinations at Salem, in March 1988. She was a foreign nationals and even as on date she is a Malaysian citizen, and as such she has to apply to Ministry of External Affairs through Indian High Commission at Malaysia for the M.B.B.S. Course. It seems for the academic year 1992-93, the criterion for selecting candidates for medicine is only on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates, who have submitted their applications. The petitioner was not selected, and this being the fourth time, she contacted some pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »