Chennai Court October 1998 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.
P. Murugan and anr. Vs. Directorate of College Education and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ274
ORDERS. S. Subramani, J.1. In both these writ petitions, petitioners seek issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the interview for the B.Ed, course run by the 1st respondent in the 2nd Respondent Institute, viz., Institute of Advanced Study in Education at Saidapet, Chennai, for the year 1998-99.2. In the affidavit in support of the petitioner, it is stated that after completing qualifying examinations, petitioners applied for B.Ed, course conducted by the first respondent at the Institute of Advanced Study in Education, and the petitioners were asked to attend an interview on 21.9.1998 at 9.30 a.m. with all original certificates. The letter dated 16.9.1998 was received by the petitioners only on 21.9.1998 making it impossible for them to attend the interview. The petitioners started to Chennai immediately after receiving the said letter and reached Chennai on 22.9.1998. They met the second respondent who informed them about their help...
Shanmugam and 2 Others Vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank, Rep. by Branch Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Mad74; 1999(3)CTC186
ORDER1. The first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.336 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore for recovery of money from the respondent No.2 and one Kanni Boyan and Nammal. The defendants 2 and 3 in the suit borrowed money from the first respondent-bank and their mother Nallammal, the fourth defendant in the suit executed a mortgage deed with respect to the property in question in 1978 as security in favour of the said bank. The said Nallammal seems to have executed the settlement deed on 7.3.1980 in favour of the petitioners who are the sons or the second defendant. To enforce the said mortgage and recover the amount, the first respondent-bank filed the suit on 23.3.1981. Since there were some superstructures in the property settled in favour of the petitioners, the said Nallammal seems to have executed a release deed on 20.1.1982 with respect to those superstructures, and she died on 1982. Preliminary decreed was passed on 5.2.1985 and final decree was also passed on 22.7....
Anja Match Industries Rep. by Its Proprietor Mr. A. Ramamoorthi and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ181; 1998(2)CTC651
ORDER1. Anja Match Industries and M/s. Bhavadharani Match Industries (A2 and A3), the petitioners herein, represented by their proprietor, A. Ramamoorthi, seeking to quash the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.550 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Sivakasi, has filed this petition requesting this court to invoke the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. M/s, South Indian Lucifer Match Works owned by P. Iyya Nadar Charitable Trust, represented by its power of Attorney Mr. S. Manoharan, filed a complaint on 18.9.1997 before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi against four persons and arrayed the petitioners as A2 and A3 for the offences under Sections 419 and 420, I.P.C. and under Sections 78(a) and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. This was referred to for investigation to the second respondent, the sub Inspector of Police, Sivakasi, under Section 156(3) CrP.C. On receipt of the same, the second respondent registered the case in Crime No....
Ravi Shah and anr. Etc. Vs. State and anr. Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC582
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. These appeal and revision are being disposed of by this common judgment, as both arise out of a single case and the parties are the same.2. Ravi Shah and Narayan Shah (Al and A2) were convicted in S.C. No. 164 of 1990 on the file of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, for the offence under Section 498(A) r/w Section 34,1.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison- ment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Hence, the present appeal in C.A. No. 1 of 1992.3. Though the said appellants were convicted under Section 498(A) read with Section 34,1.P.C. they were acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34,1.P.C. in the same trial in S.C. No. 164 of 1990 on the file of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. Hence the present revision in Crl. R.C. No. 485 of 1993 as against the said acquittal, by Ramachandra Shah, the petitioner, who was examined as P.W. 4 in the trial, the father of the victim in this case.4. The fa...
Ravi Shah and anr. Etc. Vs. State and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ188
M.K. Arpagavinayagam, J.1. These appeal and revision are being disposed of by this common judgment, as both arise out of a single case and the parties are the same.2. Ravi Shah and Narayan Shah (A1 and A2) were convicted in S.C. No. 164 of 1990 on the file of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, for the offence under Section 498(a) r/w Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Hence, the present appeal in C.A. No. 1 of 1992.3. Though the said appellants were convicted under Section 498(a) read with Section 34, I.P.C. they were acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. in the same trial in S.C. No. 164 of 1990 on the file of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. Hence, the present revision in Cri. R.C. No. 485 of 1993 as against the said acquittal, by Ramchandra Shah, the petitioner, who was examined as P.W. 4 in the trial, the father of the victim in this case.4. The ...
Venkatamma and anr. Vs. Chandra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ501
ORDERS.M. Sidickk, J.1. The revision petitioners are the defendants and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff before the lower court.2. This civil revision petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order of the learned District Munsif at Krishnagiri passed in 8.12.1997 in the amendment application in I.A.No. 1284 of 1997 in O.S.No. l61 of 1993.3. The 1st respondent/plaintiff originally filed the suit in O.S.No. 161 of 1993 for the relief of declaration that she is entitled to the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property. A written statement was filed and issues were framed and the trial had commenced and the evidence of both sides was completed. Then the 1st respondent/plaintiff herein filed an amendment application in I.A.No. 1284 of 1997 under O.6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. by setting out and the proposed amendment in the following words:The defendants after the filing of the suit forcibly trespassed...
North Arcot Ambedkhar and Sambuvarayar District Recognised Private Aid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ635
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In all these cases, cornmon question arises for consideration i.e., regarding validity of G.O.Ms.No. 525, School Education (D-l) Department, dated 29.12.1997. All these petitioners seek to quash the said order for various reasons mentioned in the writ petitions.2. All these writ petitions are filed by the management of various private aided, educational institutions. These institutes have been appointing teachers possessing the requisite qualifications as prescribed under the Rules and have been making payment to the said teachers in accordance with the scales of pay applicable to the respective category of teachers. None of these institutes collect any fee from the students and they have been depending upon the maintenance grant which is made up of a percentage of the teaching grant in order to maintain their schools. All schools are involved in advancement of education in the state and the schools are properly and thoroughly maintained and they show remarkab...
L. Dakshinamoorthy, Advocate, 61, Kalianman Koil Street, Komarapalayam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC592
ORDER1. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the notice issued by 1st respondent - Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, to the petitioner under Rule 5 in Chapter - 1 part VII read with Sec 35/36 of Advocates Act, 1961.2. Relevant facts which resulted in issuance of the said notice may be submmarised thus:-Late S.S. Man Chettiar had six sons, and there was an interse dispute between them. They even thought of initiating legal proceedings by going to Court. At that time, some well wishers of the family suggested that it is a matter which has to be settled out of Court, and advocate Mr. Sarangan, Bangalore was appointed as Arbitrator. Petitioner herein, who is also an advocate, was closely connected with the family, both in view of his relation-ship and also in view of his appointment as Legal Advisor in various Companies run by the family. Petitioner, in view of his intimate connection . with the family (not as an advocate) was also asked to co-ordinate wit...
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR116(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of declaration declaring the provision of Section 269UE(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, unconstitutional and void and to grant further consequential relief.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioners herein have filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavit together with all other relevant materi...
United Planters Association of Southern India and anr. Vs. P. Swaminat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR27]; (2001)IIILLJ27Mad; (1999)IMLJ64
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants in O.S, No. 690 of 1995, on the file of Sub-Court, Udhagamandalam, are the revision petitioners. 2. The revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Respondent herein filed O.S. No. 362 of 1994, on the file of District Court, Udhagamandalam, which was subsequently renumbered as O.S. No. 690 of 1995, on the file of Sub-Court, Udagamandalam. The suit filed by him was one for a declaration that the order, dated July 5, 1994, passed by defendants dismissing the plaintiff from service was illegal, non est, baseless unenforceable in law and opposed to principles of natural justice, and for a consequential mandatory injunction directing defendants to pay plaintiff his gratuity amount of Rs. 94,095 with interest thereon at 24 per cent per annum from the date of suit till date of payment and for all his service-cum-retirement benefits including pension due to him as per law, and for other reliefs. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »