Chennai Court March 1996 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.
Sittayee and Another Vs. Anna Transport Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC106; AIR1996Mad407; 1996(2)CTC47
ORDER1. The claimants are the appellants. The claimants have filed claim petition before the Tribunal with a petition to condone the delay of 470 days in filing the same. The Tribunal has dismissed the said application in I.A. No. 1565 of 1990. Hence the appeal is against the said order.2. The appellants have stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition that her husband died on 31-1-1989 and due to shock and grief, she was not able to file the O.P. immediately. Further she, being in illiterate lady, does not know the consequences.3. The lower Court has dismissed the application for condonation of the delay on the ground that Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribed a period of six months by way of limitation for filing the claim petition and further time of six months with a petition for condonation of the delay, i.e. altogether one year from the date of accident. In this case, the accident took place on 31-1-1989 and claim petition has been filed i...
Srimathi and Others Vs. the Union of India, and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad427; 1996(2)CTC402; (1996)IIMLJ482
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In these writ petitions, a common question is raised regarding the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The prayer in all the writ petitions is for a declaration that Section 3 of the said Act is unconstitutional, being opposed to the object of the Act. The petitioner in these cases are practising advocates. Claims have been made against them by certain persons who are impleaded as respondents in the respective cases, before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. In some cases it is before the District Forum and in some cases it is before the State Forum.2. The contention of the petitioners is that advocates are governed by the Advocates Act and they shall not be made to answer the claims under the Consumer Protection Act. It is contended that the objects of the Act do not contain any provision which will bring in the services rendered by an advocate to his client within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also arg...
District Forest Officer and Authorised Officer Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3544
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mr. R. M. Kannappa Rajendran, learned Additional Government Pleader (Forests), for the petitioner and Mr. T. Murugamanickam, for the first respondent. 3. The writ petition has been filed by the District Forest Officer and Authorised Officer, Salem Division, to call for the records in Criminal A. No. 14 of 1994 on the file of the second respondent-District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, dated 22-11-1994 and to quash the same. 4. On 19-12-1992 at Ajjampatty Reserved Forest of Shervaroys North Range, one Benz Lorry bearing Registration No. TDW 3155 was found illegally transporting sandalwood weighing 1180 kilogram worth about Rs. 2,79,500/-. The Ranger, has seized the vehicle and registered a case in UD.STOR. No. 197/92 under S. 21(d)(e)(f) and 35 and 36 A&E; of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and under Rules 3 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu possession Rule, 1970. The seized ...
Shanmugham Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3808
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 25-8-1989, in S.O. No. 8 of 1987, on the file of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, convicting the appellant for offences under Ss. 341, 366 and 376(2)(f), I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one month, three years and ten years respectively. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is as follows :- The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, filed 18 exhibits and marked 4 material objects. P.W. 1 Sumathi, the victim in this case is as resident of Soonampedu colony, staying along with her mother, brother and sister. Her father is at Madras as Rickshawman. P.W. 1 Sumathi was aged about ten years at the time of occurrence. The appellant Shanmugham aged about 49 years, was the neighbour. 3. On 25-5-1986 at 4 p.m., P.W. 1 Sumathi, went for taking water for the pigs. At that point of time, the appellant asked her to come inside his house. P.W. 1 told that she was pr...
The State Vs. P. Balan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3705
1. This appeal by the State is against the acquittal of the respondent who was prosecuted for the offences under sections 341 and 376 of Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Uthagamandlam in S.C. 1/87. The victim in this case P.W. 1 is the daughter of one Sundaram whose wife died some years ago and, therefore, he had taken a second wife and was living separately leaving the victim girl P.W. 1, in the custody of his mother, P.W. 2. The brother of P.W. 1 was living with P.W. 2 in warwick estate of Rotagiri Taluka. P.W. 1 was aged 13 at that time and was studying in VI Standard in Kerbetta. Daily she used to go to the School in Kerbetta by walk through a short-cut pathway across the jungle. On 24-4-1986 by about 4.30 p.m., she was returning from the school to her house and the respondent-accused was found grazing his cattle in the way. The respondent way-laid her and pulled her to a nearby bush where she made to lie. The respondent lifting her skirt M.O. 1 and the undergarment M.O. 3,...
Workmen, Rep. by the Secretary, Addisons Paints and Chemicals Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC517
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14291 of 1992 dated 23.4.1993, confirming the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 1193 of 1989 dated 7.2.1992. The Association representing the workman who was subjected to an order of transfer is appellant before us. The reference made to the Labour Court in G.O. 2242 dated 22.12.1989 was follows:-'Whether the transfer of Thiru. S. Nagarajan Chemist working as Technical Representative to the post of Sales Representative is justified; if not to give appropriate direction.Whether the demand of wages to Thiru S. Nagarajan from 25.7.1988 is justified; if not to give appropriate direction.'A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the employee S. Nagarajan was a Chemist in the plant eversince his appointment in the year 1962 and he continued as such till 1977. In the year 1977 he was transferred as Technical Representative which post is also said to bel...
B. Mahalakshmi by Her Power Agent K. Swaminathan Vs. D.V. Nagalakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ1
ORDERRaju, J.1.The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge Kumbakonam, dated 30.8.1995 in I.A. No. 153 of 1994 in O.S. No. 68 of 1984, whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge has chosen to reject the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint so as to introduce paragraph 7(a) to the plaint stating about the subsequent developments and events subsequent to the dismissal of the suit and said to have accrued during the pendency of the appeal regarding the alleged demolition of the stair case and introducing a claim for the relief of mandatory injunction, as also amending the valuation portion of the plaint so as to include the additional claim and relief sought for. This has been opposed by the respondents by filing a counter-affidavit contending among other things that the claims made involve even addition of a new party to the suit, that the amendment if allowed, the issues i...
Gopal and Others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ105
1. This Crl. A. No. 79/1989 is filed by the appellant-Gopal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C. 76/1986. The appellant was convicted for an offence under S. 304, Part I, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. 2. On the side of prosecution 13 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were marked. M.Os. 1 to 26 were also marked. The prosecution case is as follows :- The appellant is a resident of Kundalpatti Village. The deceased Pachaiammal is his third wife. Their marriage was registered in the Registrar's office. After the marriage of the deceased, the appellant married another woman by name Thulasiammal. So, the deceased Pachaiammal filed a complaint against the appellant/accused under S. 494, IPC. The complaint is Ex. P. 1. Then on intervention of the panchayatdhars the matter was settled by which the appellant agreed to settle his property measuring about 1-42 acres in favour of the deceased Pachaiammal and in view of th...
Munusamy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3161
1. This appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Arcot District at Vellore to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : The deceased was the wife of the appellant/accused. The appellant is working as a mason. The deceased had a suspicion that the appellant was having illicit intimacy with some other women. Therefore, there were frequent quarrels between them. PW-2 who is the step mother of the appellant is residing two houses away from the house of the appellant in Poondi Colony. PW-1 is the son-in-law of the appellant having married his daughter Laxmi. He is also living in Poondi Colony. On 25-3-1988, the appellant returned home by about 8.30-9.00 p.m. after finishing his day's work. The deceased quarrelled with the appellant on suspicion that he had visited his concubine. In the quarrel between them, the appellant hit his wife on her head...
Sivakumar Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4229
1. The appellant stands convicted for the offences under Sections 304(II) and 324 I.P.C. by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli in S.C. No. 110/89 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five year and six months respectively. The occurrence took place on 17-7-1988 at 11.00 p.m. in Manamedu village in the house of the appellant itself. The victim of the occurrence is the paramour of the appellant's mother. 2. The case of the prosecution as spoken to by the witnesses is as follows :- P.W. 3 is the mother of the appellant and she lost her husband about ten years prior to the occurrence. Subsequent to the death of her husband she had chosen to live with the deceased Thekkan. The appellant who was a student in a school is the only Son of P.W.3. The deceased was an addict to drinks and used to frequently quarrel with P.W. 3 and the appellant. A few days before the occurrence he had sold away the Cycle, vessels and books of the appellant. P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the husband a...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »