Chennai Court July 1997 Judgments
K. Venkatanarasimhan Vs. Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)IIMLJ582
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of transfer transferring the petitioner from Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle to Villupuram Ramasamy Padayachiar Electricity Distribution Circle, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the said order on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is briefly stated hereunder : He entered into the service of the respondents as 'Helper' on April 1, 1977 and he was promoted as 'Commercial Assistant' on October 31, 1981. Subsequently, he was promoted as 'Commercial Inspector' and posted to the office of the Assistant Engineer, (0 & M), Pulikarai. On May 29, 1997 he was served with a memo dated May 20, 1997 issued by the first respondent transferring him and posting to Villupuram Ramasami Padayachiar Electricity Distribution Circle. Aggrieved against the said order of transfer, he has filed the above writ petition. 3. On June 20, 1997 this Co...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government Personal a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC129; (1997)IIMLJ383
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.9.1994 passed in W.P.No. 16616 of 1994. That respondent No. 1 issued a notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to, in short, as 'the Act). The notification was issued in G.O.Ms.No. 188 dated 16.6.1993 and the same was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 21.7.1993, subsequent to the paper publication dated 18.7.1993. The learned single Judge held that notification Under Section 4(1) should be first published in the Gazette and then only the Ors. mode of publications have to be followed. In that view of the matter quashed the notification issued Under Section 4(1) of the Act.2. The question for consideration is :-Whether the publication of notification in the local newspaper before it was published in the Gazette invalidates the acquisition proceedings initiated Under Section 491 of the Act?3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary to Government, P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ383
C. Shivappa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.9.1994 passed in W.P. No. 16616 of 1994. That respondent No. 1 issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to, in short, as 'the Act). The notification was issued in G.O.Ms. No. 188, dated 16.6.1993 and the same was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 21.7.1993, subsequent to the paper publication dated 18.7.1993. The learned single Judge held that notification under Section 4(1) should be first published in the Gazette and then only the other mode of publications have to be followed. In that view of the matter quashed the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.2. The question for consideration is:Whether the publication of notification in the local newspaper before it was published in the Gazette invalidates the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1)of the Act?3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in the wr...
Tag this Judgment!Thangappandian Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mettur P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ993
1. The appellant is the accused and the respondent is the complainant. The appellant has preferred this appeal as against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge at Madurai in Sessions Case No. 155 of 1989 on 1989. 2. The prosecution case, as briefly stated, is as follows :- The deceased Santhi is the wife of the Appellant/Accused by name Thangapandian. They were married seven years prior to the occurrence which took place on 23-5-1988. They were living at Melur and they had children. The deceased Santhi also underwent birth control operation. The Appellant/Accused was a dealer in aluminium vessels at Melur. The aunt of Santhi by name Easwari was also staying with them and she was helping Santhi in her domestic matters. On 23-5-1988 at about 9 a.m. the neighbours of the accused viz., PW 4, Mariammal, PW 5 Chellammal and PW 6 Panchavarnam found the deceased Santhi hanging inside her house and with the help of others, who gathered there...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hakim Vs. Superintendent of Customs (Pros.), Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT232(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in this Court, by filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the ground that he is implicated in a case registered by the respondent in R.R. No. 6/1997, for the offence under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act.2. It is stated in the petition that he is an innocent and has not committed any offence, that he has no involvement in the alleged offence, and that merely on the basis of the confession, alleged to have been recorded on 14-2-1997, from one Jayachandran, a passenger bound for Sharjah, at Anna International Airport, Chennai, resulting in the seizure of his baggage, containing various foreign currency notes to the Indian value of Rs. 57 lakhs and odd, the petitioner has been implicated in this case.3. On the strength of these averments in the petition, Mr. Sudanthiram, learned Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue, that there is no material against the petitioner for his alleged involvement, except the alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Anandan and Another Vs. Arivazhagan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas503(Mad); 1997(2)CTC293
V. Rengasamy, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the learned judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, in Crl. M.P. No. 2170 of 1996 in C.C. No. 567 of 1995, dated August 7, 1996, dismissing the petition filed under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge the petitioners/accused.2. The petitioners are the accused before the learned judicial Magistrate for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. They contended that the second petitioner/second accused did not issue any cheque to the respondent/complainant and he was not a partner of K. S. Muthu Constructions and the respondent had not issued any notice to the second petitioner before the proceedings was initiated under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, they contended that the court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence and the complainant contended that the second petitioner is a partner of K. S. Muthu Constructions and the cheque was issued by...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Senthamarai Kannan and anr. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas312(Mad); 1997(2)CTC695
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by respondents Nos. 4 and 7 in Original Application No. 41 of 1996, on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chennai. 2. The State Bank of India, Tiruppur branch, filed the above application for recovery of Rs. 10,51,791.10 p. under two different heads, namely, medium-term loan Rs. 98,485 and cash credit account Rs. 9,53,306.10. It is the case of the bank/applicant that on the basis of an application filed by the first respondent before the bank, they were provided with two facilities, (1) medium term loan and (2) cash credit facility. It was on the basis of a single application, the above two facilities were availed, and when there is a breach of the obligations arising thereunder on availing the facilities, they are entitled to seek enforcement thereof by filing a single application. 3. When the above application was filed, the petitioners herein filed a counter taking various contentions, ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatachalam Vs. M. Sambamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC197; (1997)IIMLJ426
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.2.1997 in R.C.A. No. 1300 of 1996 confirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 13.9.1996 in M.P. No. 331 of 1996 in R.C.O.P. No. 2904 of 1995.2. The respondent in this Court is the landlord. He filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 2904 of 1995 for eviction of the tenant Under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 amended by Act 23 of 1973. During the pendency of R.C.O.P. No. 2904 of 1995, he filed M.P. No. 331 of 1996 for amendment. The amendment sought for reads that in the place of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) mentioned in the petition, Section 10(3-A)(a)(i) should be added. According to him, the provision of law in the petition has been typed inadvertantly due to typographical error and a wrong section has been mentioned in the petition. Since he is a retired army person, he is entitled to take advantage of the Section 10...
Tag this Judgment!Manjini Vs. Rajakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ633
A. Raman, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, who lost his case in the lower appellate court. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement dated 8.10.1970 on the following allegations. The defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 31,000 and an agreement was executed between the parties on 8.10.1979 and an advance of Rs. 22,000 was paid on that date. The possession was also handed over to the plaintiff. As per the condition of the agreement, the defendant has to obtain permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The defendant has to produce the No Encumbrance Certificate as well. The sale was to be executed within two months from the date of permission. The defendant has produced the application for permission to sell and it was signed by the plaintiff. It was submitted to the authority. The defendant thereafter did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The defendant did not carry out the te...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Venugopal Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ62
A. Raman, J.1. An extent of 16.10 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 426/2, 427, 428/2, 429, 430/1, 431--A and situate in the village of Velampalayam Palladam Taluk, was acquired for the construction of housing accommodation by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pollachi. In respect of the said acquisition he passed an award on 30.3.1978 determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 250 per cent and passed an award accordingly. On the landowners objecting to the said award, the matter was referred to Sub Court, Tiruppur in C.C. No. 9 of 1981, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. On reference the Sub Judge, Tiruppur, held an enquiry. On behalf of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of the State, two witnesses were examined and Bxs. B-1 to B-4 were marked. The learned Sub Judge determined the market value of the land at Rs. 275 per cent and enhanced the compensation accordingly. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »