Chennai Court September 1995 Judgments
In Re: Rajendran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1956
Arunachalam, J.1. A storm, not one natural, had blown over the campus, which accommodates the Courts of certain Metropolitan Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates, in Saidapet on 26-7-1995. The unusual impact of the storm had led to public dismay and has anguished this Court, the consequence of which is the initiation of this suo moto contempt proceedings. 2. The manner in which these proceedings stood initiated can be best noticed from the order pronounced by us on 7-8-1995, the relevant portion of which reads as hereunder :- 'The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on receipt of a telegraph from Mrs. T. Lakshmi Bharathi. Advocate, dated 26-7-1995, as well as certain other complaints inclusive of a petition signed by 45 Advocates of Saidapet Bar, coupled with a resolution passed by the Advocates' Association, Madras, had called for a report even on the initial material regarding the actual happenings at the Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts campus on 26-7-1995 from about 1O a.m. to late...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sivagnanam Vs. the Asst. Security Officer, Railway Protection Force ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ206Mad
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J. 1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner has asked this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated June 9, 1983 in No. M/XP.227 /JTJ/2/83 of the first respondent, the Assistant Security Officer, Jollarpettai which is confirmed by the respondents 2 and 3 by their orders dated July 4, 1983 and December 7, 1983 and quash the orders of the first respondent and direct the respondent to re-instate the petitioner with all benefits of continuous service. 2. The brief facts, for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition were these; The petitioner was appointed in the Railway Protection Force as a Rakshak by the first respondent on December 27, 1962 and he served as a probationer for six months after which he was confirmed. He had put in 20 years of service. 3. He was removed from service for having consumed alcohol while on duty according to the charge sheet dated January 31, 1983. The petitioner has swo...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. K. Anbazhagan, General Secretary, D.M.K. Vs. State of Tamilnadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC33
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The writ petition is a Public Interest Litigation having been filed by the General Secretary of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a political party in this State. On 18-2-1992, Mahamakam festival was celebrated at Kumbakonam. It is well known that the festival is celebrated once in 12 years and is considered to be a very prominent religious event of great public importance all over the country, That year, the Chief Minister of the State was physically present at the time of the festival to have a holy dip in the Mahamakam Tank at the auspicious hour, as already announced. But unfortunately, there was heavy stampede during the festival, as a result of which, several pilgrims died and several got injured. The newspapers gave different versions about the accident. Different reasons were adduced by the political parties as well as by the members of the public as regards the cause of the accident. Some of them indicted the Government and the Chief Minister. The Government of ...
Tag this Judgment!Midhuna Nathan and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad178
ORDERSrinivasan, J. A. INTRODUCTION 1. These five writ petitions arc challenging the selection of candidates for. the M.B.B.S., Course under the category of seats reserved for Eminent Sportsmen. The first of the petitions i.e., W.P. No. 18536 of 1994 relates to the year 1994-95. Though it was filed on 31-10-1994 and notice of motion was ordered on 7-11-1994. it has been pending unfortunately till now. The other four writ petitions relate to the current year 1995-96. The contentions are similar in all these writ petitions, though to some extent the contentions raised by two of the petitioners are not only not accepted by the other petitioners, but they have argued to the contrary. B. FACTS AND PRAYERS.2. (i) W.P. No. 18536/1994: The prayer in this writ petition is for a declaration that the selection to the M.B.B.S. course for the year 1994-95 under the special category vix., Eminent Sportsmen Quota is null and void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and for a consequential direc...
Tag this Judgment!Ouchakalai Vs. Secretary to Government, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Prohibiti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1517
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. The petitioner Ouchakalai, who is the brother-in-law of detenu Logamani s/o Kasipuli Thevar has filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records of the first respondent, i.e., Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Madras made in and relating to Letter No. 7930/P & E XV/95 dated 23-3-1995 and quash the same and set at liberty the detenu Logamani, presently undergoing detention in Central Prison, Madurai under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Central Act 46 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').2. The habeas corpus petition was admitted and notices were ordered to respondents on 9-5-1995. The respondents were served with the notices and are being represented.3. Necessary facts which could be gathered from the grounds of detention for the purpose of disposal of thi...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Raghavachari Vs. the Special Officer, Corporation of Madras and T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC324
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to C.E. No. 268 of 1993 issued by the third respondent to quash the demand dated: 29.10.93 as modified by the further demand dated 10.2.94 and direct the third respondent to issue the building permit forthwith to the petitioner's property at No. 213, St. Mary's Road, Madras 600 028.2. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that he is the owner of the property at No. 213, St. Mary's Road, Madras-28 (Old No. 74). He has further stated that in order to develop the vacant site and put up new building, he approached the M.M.D.A. for planning permission which was approved by their Lr. No. C2/28411/92. Thereafter the Corporation of Madras issued the building plan permit and suggested certain modifications and the same was carried out by the petitioner and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!R.T. Thathachari and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC65
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certio rarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 6.5.1988 in K.5/15916/87 and quash the proceedings and consequently, direct the respondents to order the release of the premises bearing Door No. 135, Eldams Road, Teynamepet, Madras-18 for the occupation of the 2nd petitioner and pass such further or other orders.2. The necessary facts which could be gathered from the affidavit of the 1st petitioner for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition are, the 1st petitioner and his daughter, the 2nd petitioner, are in joint owners of the property bearing Door No. 135, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Madras-18. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that duri...
Tag this Judgment!S.i.V. Industries Limited Vs. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ51
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing rayon yarn, filament yarn. Viscose staple fibre and edible oil. The Petitioner company's manufacturing plant is located at Sirumugai Village, Mettupalayam Taluk. Apart from the share capital, the petitioner company has borrowed loans from financial institutions amounting Rs. 175 crores. The petitioner company is having its industrial activity from 1984 by obtaining consent orders from the respondent. The industry is a continuous process chemical industry. The company has provided a modern effluent treatment plant, in order to satisfy the requirement of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as amended in 1988 (hereinafter refer to as 'the Act'). The Industry has also got a sulphuric acid plant and carbon-disulphide plant. The source of effluent are the wood washing section, digesters, pulping section viscose staple fibre preparation sec...
Tag this Judgment!Maxwell Dyes and Chemicals Private Ltd. and Another Vs. Kothari Indust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas111(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The common order, which is appealed against was passed by Government J. in respect of the prayers for interim reliefs. The facts, which are the foundation for filing the present appeals are also closely interconnected with the reliefs sought for. The respondents in all the appeals are common. Hence, all the appeals were heard together. 2. The first appellant has instituted C. S. No. 1128 of 1994 seeking for a declaration that the notice issued by the first respondent calling for the 25th annual general meeting of the company on September 12, 1994, for the purpose of considering and passing items Nos. 10, 11 and 12 under the caption 'special business' in the agenda is illegal, void and unenforceable and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their offers, subordinate, etc., from considering and passing resolutions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 set out in the agenda in the notice for the 25th annual general meeting of the first defendant-company under the capti...
Tag this Judgment!T.T.V. Dinakaran and Another Vs. the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: 1997CriLJ130; 1997(57)ECC25
Raju, J. 1. The above writ appeals, involve for consideration identical questions of law and, therefore, were heard together and are considered in common. 2. The appellant in W.A. No. 853 of 1995, who has been served with a summon dated 12-7-1995 under S. 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', by the respondent, calling upon him to appear before him to give evidence and/or to produce the documents specified in the schedule thereto viz., his Passport, his Bank account, pass books relating to accounts in India and abroad and his property details on the view that his attendance is necessary for the above purposes, in an investigation being made by the respondent under the Act, has filed W.P. No. 9354 of 1995, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the said summons issued in T3/157/S2/95. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was pleaded that he is not concerned in any way with the Super duper T.V. Private...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »