Chennai Court February 1994 Judgments
Kamashi Vs. A. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad60
ORDER1. This petition is by the mother of a male child aged about 16 months at the time of filing the petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the child and hand over the same to her. The petitioner is the wife of Venkatesan, son of respondents 1 and 2. The marriage took place on 26-4-1991, though in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of the petition it was wrongly typed as 26-11-1991. The child was born on 15-8-1992. Venkatesan died on 9-11-1993, though the petitioner stated in her affidavit that he died on 10-11-1993. According to the petitioner, she was illtreated by respondents 1 and 2, who demanded dowry and on account of their illtreatment, she was living with her parents for about five months prior to the filing of the petition with her child. Her husband took away the child about two months prior to the petition and she caused a lawyer's notice to be issued asking for return of the child, but he did not do so. After the de...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Sakuntala Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad193
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from permitting the 4th respondent from running the liquor shop at No. 67, Santhome High Road, Madras 28 on the strength of the interim stay granted by the first respondent in letter No. 20841/P and E VI/93-l, dt. 7-1-1994.2. The petitioner is the owner of the building/ premises bearing door No, 67, Santhome High Road. Madras-28, by virtue of the sale deed dated 16-2-1981 and is residing there along with her family in the upstair portion. The 4th respondent who became the tenant under the erstwhile owner B. P. Pillay, from whom the petitioner has purchased the property in question in 1981, was originally carrying on liquor shop business is carrying on pharmacy business even though there is no fresh tenancy agreement between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. It is further alleged in the affidavit filed herein that the petitioner had filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 2859/88 on the file o...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vaithianathan and Etc. Vs. the Union of Territory of Pondicherry an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad197
ORDER1. The petitioners are stage carriage operators, and In particular, they are operating on the inter-State route Pondichery to Villupuram via, Ariyur and Kandamangalam. The third respondent is an operator on the inter-State route Pondicherry to Tiruvennainallur, via. Villaianur. Pakkani Cross road, Kariamanckam, Madagadipet and Valavanur. As per the permit conditions.she has to operate two singles on the entire route and eight singles between Pondicherry and Villupuram. The third respondent applied for variation of the conditions of the permit, seeking curtailment of the route from Villianur to Madagadipet and also for deviation of the route from Villianur to Madagadipet, via Kadamangalam. She sought for this variation in respect of all the singles operated by her, this variation in respect of all the singles operated by her, thus practically abandoning the original route. The application for variation was taken up for hearing by the first respondent on 24-1-1989. The petitioners o...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C.S. Subramanian and Others Vs. Kumarasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)IMLJ438
Raju, J.1. The above writ petitions involve for determination certain common and identical issues currently in controversy in the medical circles and consumer litigation relating to the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Central Act 68 of 1986), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to facilities made available by hospitals providing medical care and members of medical profession treating a patient, in the realm of diagnosis and treatment. 2. A brief reference to the stage and circumstances of the case which led to the filing of the above writ petitions individually would be necessary to appreciate the nature of the grievance sought to be vindicated by the parties on either side. Writ Petition No. 1953 of 1992 as the amended prayer stands, has been filed by two medical practitioners (husband and wife) for a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from exercising their jurisdiction against the medical practitioners on the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C.S. Subramanian Vs. Kumarasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas747(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above writ petitions involved for determination certain common and identical issues currently in controversy in the Medical circles and consumer litigation relating to the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Central Act 68 of 1986), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', to facilities made available by Hospitals providing medical care and members of medical profession treating a patient, in the realm of diagnosis and treatment. 2. A brief reference to the stage and circumstances of the case which led to the filing of the above writ petitions individually would be necessary to appreciate the nature of the grievance sought to be vindicated by the parties on either side. W.P. No. 1953 of 1992 as the amended prayer stands, has been filed by two Medical Practitioners (husband and wife) for the writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from exercising their jurisdiction against the Medical Practitioners on the basis of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Gem Cables and Conductors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Hyderabad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(48)ECC1; 1994(72)ELT848(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. These Appeals are preferred against a common order dated 24-1-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 933 and 934 of 1994. 2. In the Writ Petitions, the petitioners sought for quashing the order dated 6-1-1994 bearing No. E/Misc/713/MAS (M/Order No. 11/94) passed by the second respondent. The petitioner appellant also sought for quashing another order of the same date passed by the second respondent in E/Misc/713/93/MAS (M/Order No. 11/94) and further sought for a direction to hear and decide the appeals, without insisting for pre-deposit of Rs. 6,78,562.30, pursuant to the order of the first respondent in O.R. No. 58 of 1991, dated 19-3-1993. 3. Before we consider the contentions raised in these Appeals, necessary facts are to be adverted to. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of cables and they are registered as small scale units. They are required to pay excise duty on ad valorem basis at 15% for clearance upto Rs. 75,00,000/- and at 25% ...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport Corpn. Villupuram Vs. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC132; 1995ACJ594; AIR1995Mad102
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. In all these civil Miscellaneous Petitions one common question of law is involved and hence they are disposed of together. These civil miscellaneous petitions are for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in three different Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in three different motor Accidents Claims original petitions, pending disposal of three different civil miscellaneous petitions for excusing the delay in filing the respective civil miscellaneous appeal against the awards passed in the respective motor accidents claims original petition. The question is whether these stay petitions are maintainable in the teeth of Order 41, Rule 3A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in other words, whether Order 41, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to such civil miscellaneous appeals filed in this Court under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar R. Jain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas750(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. Accused in CC. No. 3814 of 1993, on the file of the Eighth Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. The short facts are: The respondent herein has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall refer hereafter as 'the Act'). The allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows: The accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000 from the complainant on June 15, 1992, and had executed a promissory note therefor. To discharge the said debt, the accused issued a cheque dated December 22, 1992, in favour of the complainant for Rs. 30,000. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. It was returned for the reason, 'refer to drawer'. The complainant sent a notice on December 29, 1992, and the accused had received it on December 31, 1992. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1994
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT350(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24-1-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition 1116 of 1994. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner can avail the alternative remedy of appeal, which is adequate, efficacious and effective. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant sought for a declaration that the final products, viz., bars and rods of iron non-alloy steel as specified in serial number 2 under column 3 of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988 mean and include 'bars and rods of iron, non-alloy, steel twisted after rolling' in terms of Chapter Note 1(m) of Chapter of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and such other orders as are deemed fit under the circumstances of the case. 3. There is an order of adjudication made against the appellant. That order was appealed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in A. No. 69/93(M) & 76/93(M). The Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!R. Lakshmi Vs. Thanthai Pariyar Transport Corporation Ltd., and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad225
ORDER1. This writ petition is for issueof a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent Corporation to disburse the amount due to the petitioner's husband Thiru S. Ramadoss, as per the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the family members of her late husband on 7-1-1991.2. It seems the petitioner got married to one Ramadoss on 18-6-1990 according to the Hindu customs and rites. Unfortunately within three days of the marriage the petitioner's husband died on the spot in an accident, as he was working as a conductor with the first respondent-Corporation. The petitioner seems to have applied to the first respondent-Corporation for the benefit which accrued to her late husband. But, unfortunately the petitioner's father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law raised objections before the first respondent-Corporation. At this point of time, it seems the petitioner and the second respondent, who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner, had en-ter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »