Chennai Court April 1997 Judgments
K.V. Shanmugam and Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad338; 1997(2)CTC431; (1998)IMLJ417
ORDER1. Since common questions involved in these writ petitions, the same may be disposed of by the following order.2. In W.P. No. 8505 of 1995 the petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 119 Industries (E2) Department dated 5-5-1995, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pass orders granting lease or renewal in favour of the petitioner in respect of 18.60 acres in bit No. 5 of Badanavadi Reserve Forest, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri district by disposing of the petitioner's application dated 9-5-1994.3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :--Initially by proceedings dated 12-12-1974 theDistrict Forest Officer, Dharmapuri has granted quarry lease in respect of 18-60 acres in Bit V of Badanavadi Reserve Forest for a period of two years and thereafter by G.O.Ms. No. 382 Industries Department dated 21-3-1977 the second respondent has granted lease for a p...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd. Vs. A.S. Mohamed Yusuf
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas223(Mad); 1998CriLJ2215
K. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of acquittal dated August 10, 1989, of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.l., Egmore, Madras, in E.O.C.C. No. 286 of 1989, on his file. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows : The complainant/appellant, Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd., G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai-32, by its senior personnel officer, S. S. Venkatraman, filed the private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.l., Egmore, Madras-8, under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the allegation that the accused/respondent was found in possession of 940.20 grains of metal without proper authority and disciplinary proceedings were initiated and on March 10, 1984, under section 15(2) of the Standing Orders of the company, charge-sheet was given to him. The accused/respondent gave his explanation on March 23, 1984, and the enquiry officer submitted a report that the charge against the accused had been p...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nagarajan Vs. Pandurangan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas307(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Jaipac India Limited, a company, represented by the Regional Sales Manager, has filed a complaint against the accused, Nagaraj, the petitioner herein, for the offences under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Before the commencement of the trial, the petitioner filed a petition to discharge the accused, on the ground that the details of the dates with regard to the presentation and the return of the cheque, were not clearly given in the complaint, and that in the name of the regional manager, some other person had been substituted, and that once the cheque was earlier presented, it cannot be represented again. But considering the contentions raised in the discharge petition, and the counter by the complainant, the learned magistrate dismissed the petition, as there is no merit. This order is challenged in this revision. It transpires from the record, that there are enough details in the complaint, and the authorisatio...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jesu Thiagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Presented by Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)IMLJ432
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (hereinafter referred to as SSLC) as 21.10.1114 Malayalam Era corresponding to 4.6.1939 instead of 7.5.1939. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : According to him, the petitioner is holder of M.A., M.Ed., and he was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the St. Lawrence Higher Secondary School, Madathattuvilai, Kanyakumari District in the year 1973. Since 1981 he was employed as post graduate teacher in the same Higher Secondary School. He was born on 21.10.1114 (Malayalam Era). In all school certificate, his date of birth is correctly entered in Malayalam Era as 21.10.1114. However, while entering his date of birth in English Era it was wrongly entered as 7.5.1939 instead of 4.6.1939. The said mistake is crept in S.S.L.C. Book, wherein his date of birth is 7.5.1939 inste...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswamy @ Govindaram (Died) 5 ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector (Revenu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC97; (1997)IIMLJ662
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above two revisions filed 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be dealt with and disposed of together since they involve identical and common questions of law.2. C.R.P. No. 2536 of 1996 has been filed against the order dated 30.4.1996 in C.R.A.No. 20 of 1994 in L.A.O.P.No. 139 of 1976. C.R.P.No. 2537 of 1996 has been filed against the order dated 30.4.1996 in C.R.A.No. 19 of 1994 in L.A.O.P.No. 140 of 1976. Both the above orders have been passed by the Principal District Judge at Pondicherry. The applications dealt with by the Court below, were filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The common averments that have been made in both the applications are that in L.A.O.P.Nos. 139 and 140 of 1976, the respective petitioners, i.e., the deceased 1st petitioner in C.R.P.No. 2536 of 1996 and the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 2537 of 1996, were claimants and the matter was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The...
Tag this Judgment!Rengasamy @ Govindasamy (Died) and ors. Vs. Deputy Collector (Revenue) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC731
ORDER1. The petitioners in these petitions have filed these revisions against the Orders, dismissing their applications for review.2. The petitioners are owners of the lands which was acquired by the respondent. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 3.3.1976. The petitioners put-forth their enhanced claim for the compensation and references were made to the Principal Sub-Court, Pondicherry under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said references were numbered as 139 and 140 of 1976 and the Sub-Court enhanced the compensation. Against the said judgment of the sub Court, the respondent herein filed appeals in A.S. Nos. 568 and 579 of 1982 before this Court. Those appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.4.1989. While dismissing the appeals, the Division Bench gave liberty to the petitioners herein to seek for a review of the judgment after final orders are passed by the Supreme Court in respect of the amended provision Section 23(2) and 25 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Sampath and Naicker Vs. Kumaraswamy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC457
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. This revision petition is against the order passed by the District Munsiff, Vanur in E.P.No. 26 of 1996 in O.S.No. 32 of 1991, dated 5.2.97. The said execution petition has been filed by the plaintiff/ decree holder for delivery of possession of the property on the ground that the defendant/respondent did not act in accordance with compromise decree in the suit.2. The respondent resisted the same by contending that as per the decree, the suit has been dismissed as settled out of Court, that there is no indication that the property should be delivered to the plaintiff, and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.3. After hearing the contentions of the petitioner and respondent, the learned District Munsiff has passed the impugned order, dated 5.2.1997 observing that the petitioner is entitled to execute the decree, since the respondent failed to act in accordance with the compromise decree.4. As against the order which was passed by the learned District Mun...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Annamma Joy, Director Q. Flex Cables Ltd. Vs. the Collector and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ74
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the Northern and Eastern side compound walls situ-ate abutting the property and measuring acres 10.00 cents and building of the petitioner company in Survey Nos. 172/1 and 172/2 in Melakkottaiyur Village, Chingleput Taluk, Chengai-MGR District and to pay damages of Rs. 2,00,000 to the petitioner company.2. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Q. Flex Cables Limited, who had purchased land in Melakottaiyur Village for the purpose of locating a factory for manufacturing cables and allied products. When the lands were purchased during June, 1993, the entire extent of the Northern and Eastern side of the property were occupied hut dwellers and those occupations were in respect of Government lands. The petitioner states that as access to the property was blocked by huts, the huts were removed on their paying compensation to the hut dwellers. According to the p...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Shanmugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ417
ORDERP.S. Sathasivam, J.1. Since common questions involved in these writ petitions, the same may be disposed of by the following Order.2. In W.P. No. 8505 of 1995 the petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 119 Industries (E2) Department dated 5.5.1995, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pass orders granting lease or renewal in favour of the petitioner in respect of 18.60 acres in bit No. 5 of Badanavadi Reserve Forest, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District by disposing of the petitioner's application, dated 9.5.1994.3. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:Initially by proceedings dated 12.12.1974 the District Forest Officer, Dharmapuri has granted quarry lease in respect of 18-60 acres in Bit V of Badanavadi Reserve Forest for a period of two years and there-after by G.O. Ms. No. 382, Industries Department dated 21.3.1977 the second respondent has...
Tag this Judgment!P. Meenambal Vs. R. Rajeswari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ510
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The fourth respondent in Succession O.P. No. 49 of 1988 on the file of the Principal/Subordinate Judge, Madurai is the revision petitioner.2. Succession Certificate application was filed by the first respondent herein regarding some deposits in the State Bank of Mysore, Madurai in S.B. Account No. 688 which stood in the name of late Shenbagam Servai and the petitioner herein. By an Order, the Subordinate Court, found that the revision petitioner is not entitled to collect the amount she being not a legal heir of the deceased. It has further found that either or survivor account is not a gift in favour of the survivor, but only a right to collect the amount covered by the receipt. It is the case of the petitioner that the amount that is deposited in the name of the deceased and herself are her earnings and even the deceased did not have a right over the same. It is her case that the above is not a part of the estate of the deceased. The Subordinate Court reject...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »