Chennai Court April 1994 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.
Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs. K.S. Selvamani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: [1995]84CompCas806(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in C.C. Nos. 9, 10, 11 of 1992 and 247 of 1991 have filed these petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in the said cases and for quashing the same. 2. The short facts are : In C.C. No. 9 of 1992, the respondent in Criminal O.P. No. 6661 of 1993 has filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein for the offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the said complaint are briefly as follows : 3. The complainant is manufacturing a high class variety of export fabrics. The second accused is the son of the first accused. The accused purchased high class variety of export fabrics on credit basis and towards part payment of the amount due to the complainant, they handed over two cheques dated July 15, 1991, and August 15, 1991, on July 15, 1991, promising...
Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ236Mad
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. Aggrieved by the Order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras, in ID. No. 218 of1983 dated January 20, 1984, the petitioner/Management has preferred this writ petition.2. The facts on which there is not much of dispute, are the following:-The second respondent, after retirement from 1 service as a policeman, was taken into service by the petitioner initially on payment of Rs. 5/-per day which was subsequently raised to Rs. 6/-per day, from October 27, 1974. The second respondent claims that he was discharging the duties of not only ticket-canvasser but also the duties of time-keeper. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was only a ticketcanvasser in the bus-stand and not a regular employee, and he was not even in the muster- roll maintained by the Corporation. While the second respondent was working in the petitioner-Corporation, his services were abruptly and without any notice terminated on and from April 23, 1981, Aggrieved by that te...
Sri Hanuman Vahana Panchaparva Kattalai Attached to Sri Venkatachalapa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ239
ORDERThangamani, J.1. Revision petitioner Hanuman Vahana Panchaparva Kattalai of Sri Venkatachalapathi Perumal Temple, Pulivalam has leased out the suit property to the respondent for a period of 5 years under a registered lease deed dated 3.3.1987. The lease was determined by efflux of time, after issuance of notice under Section 106, C.P.C. the kattalai instituted O.S. No. 93 of 1992 in the Court of District Munsiff of Tiruvarur for recovery of possession and arrears of rent. It appears that on 2.3.1992 the Executive Officer of the temple issued a notice to the parties herein through his lawyer setting up titles to the suit property in favour of the temple. The temple has also attacked the lease deed between the parties as unauthorised. So the present revision petitioner came forward with O.S. No. 74 of 1992 in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from running a touring cinema theatre in the suit property till he is evic...
Krishnasamy thevar and Others Vs. State By: Inspector of Police, Maniy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2428
ORDER1. The counter petitioners in M.C. No. 29/93 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti, have filed this petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. Short facts are : The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti, has passed the impugned order under S. 107, Cr.P.C. acting under S. 107, Cr.P.C. on 21-6-1993 against the counter petitioners, in which he has directed them to appear before him on 21-6-1993 at 10 a.m. and show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bond for Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each and to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and also why they should not be ordered to execute interim bond till the disposal of the case. 3. I have heard Miss N. S. Nappinai for the petitioners. She would submit that the impugned order is infirm for the following two reasons viz., (i) the order acting under S. 107, Cr.P.C. cannot ask the counter petitioners t...
Ramachandra Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. Seshachala Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ433
Swamidurai, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 130 of 1980 on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, is the appellant. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the respondents. The suit is for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit properties and for future mesne profits in the 1/4th share. The case of the plaintiffs briefly stated is as follows: The suit properties in Setharapattu village were purchased by Doraisami Naidu and Chinnasamy Naidu under a registered sale deed dated 21.10.1982. By reason of that sale deed, they became entitled each to an undivided half share in the properties. Duraisami Naidu died in 1944 leaving behind him his two daughters, namely Meenakshiammal (D-1) and Jayalakshmiammal who is now dead. Duraisami's wife predeceased him and so Duraisami's half share was inherited by the abovesaid two daughters and they were in possession of the properties along with Ramachandra Naidu (D-2) son of late Chinnasami Naidu. Jayalakshmi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›