Chennai Court April 1996 Judgments
Ganesan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ126
ORDER1. This is a revision referred by the petitioner Ganesan, against the Order dated 20-9-1995, passed in Crl.M.P. No. 102 of 1995, on the file of the Court of Sessions, South Arcot Vallalar District at Cuddalore, confirming the order of confiscation, confiscating a mini-lorry, bearing registration No. TSF 3117, in R.C. Camp/L. 4/Confs/94, dated 30-11-1994. 2. The facts of the case need narration :- On 10-8-1993 at about 8.00 a.m. while the Sub-Inspector of Police, Reddichavadi Police Station was making vehicle check up opposite to the Reddichavadi Police Station in Pondy-Cuddalore Main Road, he noticed a mini lorry bearing registration No. TSF 3117 coming and intercepted the same. When, it was checked he found 3804 IMEL sealed liquor bottles in it on transit from Pondy to Tamil Nadu without any valid licence or permit. He arrested the driver Michel, seized the contraband and the mini lorry under mahazar. A case was registered in Reddichavadi Police Station Cr. No. 381 of 1993, under...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Vs. Perumal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ907
ORDER1. This revision is preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the order of the Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee, dated 27-8-1990 discharging the accused in respect of the charges under Ss. 147, 447, 427 and 506(1) IPC by invoking the provisions under S. 251 of the Code of the criminal procedure. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The complainant/petitioner has purchased a house site with a stone-house from one Rathinam on 24-2-1989. Since then he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondents 1 to 13 accused, since gave trouble to the complainant possession of the said property, he filed a suit O.S. No. 484 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif court, Poonamallee and obtained interim injunction restraining the accused from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the complainant. On 28-3-1989 the complainant also gave a petition to the Superintendent of police, Chingleput and Sub-Inspector of Police, Adambakkam against t...
Tag this Judgment!Collr. of Customs, (Appeals) Vs. Renowned Auto Products Mfrs. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1997(91)ELT545(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner Dr. G. K. Pillai, Collector of Customs, the accused in C.C. No. 8499 of 1994, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has preferred this revision, against the order of dismissal, dated 24-2-1995 on his petition to drop the proceedings and to recall the summons issued in the above case by the Magistrate. 2. The facts leading to the present revision need narration :- The complaint, Renowned Auto Products ., has its factory premises at No. 122, SIPCOT, Industrial Estate, Hosur. The complainant is dealing in the business of production and manufacture of shock absorbers and automobile spares.3. The petitioner/accused, through his subordinate officers conducted a raid in the factory premises of the complainant on 17-5-1994 and 19-5-1994. On the basis of the materials collected from the premises during the raid, the Managing Director of the Complaint/company was interrogated. After perusal of the records, books of account, the complaint/company was a...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Madurai Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC749; [1996(74)FLR2001]; (1996)IILLJ279Mad; (1996)IIMLJ93
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J. 1. This Writ Petition is for quashing the order of the 1st Respondent dated September 30, 1985 in P.S.A. 11 of 1985. The petitioner is the Corporation of Madurai, by its Commissioner. The facts of the case are as follows :- The 2nd respondent was employed in the Corporation as a Workman. On March 26, 1984 he was placed under suspension under Rule 53(1) of the Fundamental Rules. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him. A criminal case was also registered against him. However, the criminal court acquitted him. The suspension order was revoked on June 3, 1985. During the period of suspension the 2nd respondent was paid 50% of pay during the first six months and thereafter at 75% of the pay till the revocation of the suspension. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed P.S.A. No. 11 of 1985 claiming Rs. 3,432.31 under Section 4 of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981. According to him, the said amount represented the difference between the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of K.R.M. Estate, Thanjavur Vs. the I Additional Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ155Mad; (1996)IIMLJ130
ORDER1. This writ has been filed for quashing the order in I.D. No. 311 of 1985, dated November 27, 1986. 2. The writ petition has been filed under the following circumstances : The 2nd respondent was working as Maniam for collecting the lease rents from the lessees at Kottur village under the petitioner. Another person by name Natesa Kalingarayar was requested by the petitioner to collect the lease rents for the year 1984. Hence the 2nd respondent raised the dispute contending that he was employed under the petitioner as Maniam and getting Rs. 15 as monthly salary besides daily batta of Rs. 7.50. He was orally retrenched by the petitioner from service with effect from July 1, 1984. The 2nd respondent sent a letter dated August 29, 1984 requesting the petitioner to reinstate him. Since is request was not considered he raised an industrial dispute as stated above. After conciliation, he filed the petition I.D. No. 311 of 1985 before the 1st respondent. The 1 st respondent allowed the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Shoba Viswanatha Vs. D.P. Kingsley
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC620; (1996)IIMLJ96
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in C. No. 239 of 1982, on the file of this Court, is the appellant. Plaintiff therein is the respondent.2. For the sake convenience, in this appeal parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.3. Plaintiff filed the above suit for the following relief:-(1) for specific performance of the contract for sale of the house and premises No. 106, Harrington Road, Madras-31 and in default direct the office of the Hon'ble Court to have the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff; (2) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and premises No. 106, or reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper; and (4) for costs of this suit'.4. The suit was filed on 22.4.1982, on the following allegations:-The schedule property admittedly belongs to the appellant and the same was taken on lease by Needle Industries (India) Ltd., for accommodating the office -cum-residence of its director and Secretary, and he came to occupy th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramayee Vs. Krishnaveni and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC547
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 2432 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Turaiyur, is the appellant in the above second appeal. She filed the said suit for declaration that she is also a heir to the deceased Moorthy to receive the amount of gratuity, family pension and other amounts to be disbursed by the Tamil Nadu Government and the amount to be disbursed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 4 from disbursing the said amounts.2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint are as follows:- One Moorthy, the son of the plaintiff and the husband of the first defendant was employed as a police constable in Thanjavur East Police circle. The said Moorthy died in harness on 31.7.79. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the only legal heirs of the deceased Moorthy. According to the plaintiff, Tamil Nadu Government disburses Rs. 10,000 as family benefit fund, the gratuity and pension to the heirs ...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Narasimhan Vs. the Management of Olcott-memorian High School and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC711; (1996)IIMLJ128
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition is for a certiorari to quash the order passed in C.M.A. No. 220 of 1985, dated 22.8.1986, on the file of the 1st Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The petitioner is the Headmaster of the 1st respondent school. A disciplinary proceeding was instituted against him by the 1st respondent by issuing a charge memo dated 16.6.1982 containing 13 charges. An enquiry officer appointed by the management found on 25.11.1983 that all charges were proved. Thereafter permission was sought for terminating the services of the petitioner. But the Chief Educational Officer refused to give permission as per his order dated 26.10.1984. On appeal to the Joint Director on 24.11.1984, the Joint Director permitted the management to impose any punishment except the removal. However, the management chose to terminate the services of the petitioner as per the order dated 27.2.1985.3. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Director who allowed the ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rengaiyan Vs. A.M. Noorullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC681; (1996)IIMLJ210
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 28.3.1988 in R.CO.P. No. 23 of 1984 confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, Thanjavur District in R.C.A. No. 16 of 1989 dated 22.11.1990.2. The respondent herein filed the petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The case of the landlord is that he requires the building for the business of his son. The building in question is situated in Mayiladuthurai town, Pattamangala Street, Mayiladuthurai and is occupied by the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 400. The son of the respondent herein is a partner in M/s. N.A. Ali Traders, carrying on iron and steel business. The building is required for the business of his son. The respondent's son is not owning any building of his own at Mayiladuthurai. Notice was sent on 14.11.1983 and a reply containing false and baseless all...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rengaiyan Vs. A.M. Noorullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ210
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 28.3.1988 in R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 1984 confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, Thanjavur District in R.C.A. No. 16 of 1989, dated 22.11.1990.2. The respondent herein filed the petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The case of the landlord is that he requires the building for the business of his son. The building in question is situated in Mayiladuthurai town, Pattamangala Street, Mayiladuthurai and is occupied by the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 400. The son of the respondent herein is a partner in M/s. N.A. Ali Traders, carrying on iron and steel business. The building is required for the business of his son. The respondent's son is not owning any building of his own at Mayiladuthurai. Notice was sent on 14.11.1983 and a reply containing false and baseless a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »