Chennai Court June 1997 Judgments
P. Rengarajan and anr. Vs. Santhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ491; (1998)IMLJ265
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed by the owner of the lorry involved in the accident and the insurance company against the judgment and the award of compensation dated 26.9.91 in M.C.O.P. No. 57 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Pattukottai. The claimant before the Tribunal is the wife, of one Thyagarajan, who died in the accident, impleading also to the claim petition the father and mother of the deceased as respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The educational qualification of the deceased was M.A., B.Ed., and he was working as direct recruit Sub-Inspector in the Tamil Nadu Police Service. At the time of his death, he was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station. It was claimed that the deceased was a bright officer who earned appreciation from all quarters, even at the threshold of his career, that at about 6 a.m. on 22.6.1989 when he was travelling by his motor cycle bearing registration No. TNZ 2260 to go to his work ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Thirupathy Vs. the State Bank of Travancore, Represented by Its Reg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ445
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The prayer in W.P. No. 4185 of 1993 is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Preliminary Order in Ref. R.M.V. (T), dated 18.12.1992 the final order dated 22.1.93 passed by the Regional Manager v. State Bank of Travancore Madras, the first respondent herein and the proceedings of the Collector of Madurai the 3rd respondent herein in Na. Ka. No. 118774/84, Adi. 8, dated 15.4.1986 quash the same and direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner in service of the first respondent bank with all benefits, continuity of service and all consequential and incidental benefits attached to the post held by the petitioner.2. In the latter writ petition, namely W.P. No. 4186 of 1993, the prayer is to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Collector of Madurai in Na. Ka. No. 118774/84 Adi-8, 15.4.1986 by the first respondent and quash the same.3. The brief facts leading to t...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sivakumar Vs. Manimegalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2689; I(1998)DMC529
ORDER1. This revision by Mr. Sivakumar, husband, before this Court, is directed against the order dated 6-9-96, passed in MC. No. 157/95, on the file of Family court, Coimbatore awarding maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month from the date of application i.e. on 13-4-1994. 2. The respondent Manimegalai, wife of the petitioner filed a petition under S. 125, Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance in M.C. No. 7/94 on 13-4-1994, before the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Coimbatore, on 27-9-94, the petitioner/husband filed a counter. Thereafter on 15-3-1995, the case was transferred to the Family Court, Coimbatore, and the same was taken on file in M.C. No. 157/95, by the Family Judge, Coimbatore. 3. In the enquiry conducted by the lower Court, on the side of wife, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of husband, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. R1 to R6 were marked. 4. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 12-1-1986 at Mettu...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collr. of Cus., Madras-1 Vs. Govindasamy Ragupathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1997
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT50(Mad)
1. The uniform case of the prosecution as disclosed in the above evidence and other circumstances could be summed up as under :2. The accused arrived from Singapore by flight at the International Airport at Madras on the night on 17-7-1987 at about 11.45 p.m. P.W. 1 who was keeping surveillance at the International Airport Hall at Customs, noticed the accused, and on suspicion that he might be carrying gold in his baggage or in his person intercepted him while he was proceeding towards the exit gate. The accused was charged by the customs as per the clearance card Exhibit P-1. He had declared one Sony colour Television and other goods worth 75 dollars. P.W. 1 informed his Superintendent P.W. 2 about his suspicion and the interception of the accused. P.W. 2 ordered the detention of the accused. Two witness viz., T. V. Rajaram and Ragu from Duty Free Shop were called to be first at that spot P.W. 1 questioned the accused in the presence of the said witnesses and P.W. 2, as to whether he ...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corpn., Madras Vs. Balas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC153
ORDER1. The above appeal has been preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras represented by its Regional Director under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment delivered by the Court of Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Madras-8 under Section 255(1) of Cr. P.C. in C.C. No. 11971 of 1986 dated December 31, 1987, acquitting the accused for offences charged and tried under Section 85(e) and (g) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. 2. The facts of the case, as put by the appellant before the lower Court are that the two accused therein were the Directors of a concern called M/s. Mesral Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the factory of which is located at Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore-5 and the same would come under the purview of the E.S.I Act and that the said company should have submitted the Returns for the period ending with March 31, 1986 on or before April 30, 1986 to the office of the E.S.I Corporation, Madras Region, but the accused failed to ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Mysore Vs. Lakshmi Construction P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1997
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas258(Mad)
N. Arumugam, J. 1. The suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,73,113.19 with further interest at 18 per cent. per annum on the said amount which may accrue from the date of plaint till the date of payment from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and also the cost of the suit and that in case of default, the plaint schedule property to be sold through court and the proceeds after defraying the expenses of the sale applied in and towards the payment of the said principal, interest and costs and if such proceeds shall not be sufficient for the payment of the full amount, such defendants may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the deficiency with interest thereon at 18 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests until realisation and without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff to proceed against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and also to direct the plaintiff to appropriate the proceeds of the deposits made by the fifth defendant towards the decree in Clause 1 above with necessary orders. 2....
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Periyasamy Nadar and Sons and 4 ors. Vs. S. Sakthivel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC241
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioners filed R.C.O.P.No. 13 of 1995, on the file of Rent Controller, Virudhunagar, against the respondent herein for eviction on the ground of wilful default. Pending the said petition, petitioners also filed an application in I.A.No.35 of 1995, Under section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for deposit of arrears of rent.2. On 1.3.1996, after finishing enquiry, the Rent Controller, after considering the legal and genuine claim of the petitioners, allowed the petitions and ordered eviction.3. The respondent herein, challenging the above order filed two appeals in R.C.A.Nos. 9 of 1996 against the order on the application Under Section 11(4) of the said Act, and another appeal in R.C.A.No. 10 of 1996, against the order passed in the main O.P. When these two appeals came before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on 23.4.1996, the Rent Control Appellate Authority in .A.No. 194 of 1996, granted interim stay, despite t...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Nadar @ Subramaniya Nadar Vs. S. Saraswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC132; (1997)IIMLJ385
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy dated, 9.8.1996 in I.A. No. 157 of 1996 in O.S. No. 216 of 1983.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- One AL. Shanmugam filed O.S.No. 216 of 1983 praying for partition of the suit property into two equal shares and allotment of one share to the plaintiff. The trial of the suit commenced and the said Shanmugam was examined as the plaintiff's witness. The chief examination was over and the petitioner's counsel cross examined the plaintiff. Several answers were also elicited from the witness. According to the petitioner, the witness was giving answers correctly to the questions put to him, but he took time for answering the questions. The Court also put questions to the witness which the witness answered. Some of the answers for the questions put in the cross examination were not in favour of the plaintiff's case. At that time the plaintiff's counsel stated that t...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ443
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 2209, Labour Department, dated 29.9.1987 rejecting the request of the petitioner to refer the matter before the Labour Court, the petitioner-workman has filed the present writ petition.2. In order to appreciate the case of the petitioner I hereby extract the impugned order:3. I have heard Mr. S. Periyaswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader for first respondent and Mr. S. Kadarkarai, learned Counsel for the second respondent.4. The only reason given by the Government in the impugned order is that inasmuch as the petitioner has submitted resignation letter dated 2.7.1986, it is not possible for him to raise an Industrial Dispute. It is the contention of the learned Counsel forthe petitioner that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on 1.6.1986 and at no point of time, he has submitted any resignation as found in the i...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswamy Naidu and anr. Vs. Kuppuswamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ648
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title to the suit property and for injunction.2. The plaintiff's case is: the plaintiffs are members or the joint Hindu family. The first plaintiff on 20.5.1975, for consideration of Rs. 9,270 purchased the suit property from defendants 1 and 2. The original documents of title were also handed over to the first plaintiff and ever since the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. The defendants have no right whatsoever. Anyhow, defendants 3 and 4 with the help of defendants 1 and 2 are attempting to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the suit.3. The defendants 1 and 2 remained absent and were set ex parte.4. The written statement filed by the third defendant was adopted by 4th defendant. It is contended as follows. The sale deed dated 20.5.1975 in favour of the plaintiff has been fraudulently corrected and forged. It has been done by the second plaintiff and the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »