Chennai Court January 1999 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.
Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited and anr. Vs. M. Mal Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2743
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This is a petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners initiated by the complainant: the respondent herein through a private complaint filed under Section. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Mr. Zaffarullah Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner would stress upon the following points to seek for quashing :-(1) There was no debt or liability on the date of issue of the cheque, i.e., on 1-1-1997 on which date the memorandum of understanding was entered into between the complainant and the petitioners by which Rs. 30 lakhs loan was obtained and Promissory Note was executed and the immovable property was also given as security. Therefore, S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be invoked.(2) Subsequent to the filing of the private complaint dated 19-2-1998 against the petitioners, there was another memorandum of understanding entered into between the parties on 6-11-1998 by which the petitioners agreed to pay the entire amou...
The Management of Sholayar Estate, Sholayar Po, Valparai Vs. the Presi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC608; [1999(82)FLR449]; (1999)ILLJ1147Mad; (1999)IMLJ605
ORDERJudgment pronounced by C. Shivappa, J. 1. The Appellant, being aggrieved against the order of remand, dated 30.8.1996 in W.P.No.8273 of 1986, has challenged the same on the ground that the learned single Judge having noticed the misconduct being proved, erred in holding that the factors like length of service and the age of the workman would have to be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of punishment. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a decision in 1980 (1) LLN 211, contended that the length of service is not a criteria to decide the quantum of punishment and the finding of the learned Judge is opposed to the above principle. 3. A Division Bench of this court, in The Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Sainson, 1995 W.L.R. 379 has held that it is always open to the Court to interfere, if it is of the opinion that the penalty imposed is harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. 4. In Colour-Chem Limited v. A.L. Alaspurkar, : [1998]1S...
Samidurai Vs. Rajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)53; I(2000)DMC252
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Samidurai, the petitioner herein, challenging the award of maintenance of Rs. 400 / - per month in favour of h is wife, the respondent herein, by the order in M.C. No. 26 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Trichy dated 29.3.1996, confirmed in his revision in Crl. R.C. No. 63 of 1996 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy dated 15.4.1998, has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.2. The wife, the respondent herein, filed an application for maintenance claiming maintenance from the petitioner. She examined three witnesses on her side and marked 7 exhibits. The petitioner examined five witnesses on his side and exhibited 10 documents. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Trichy awarded the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred Crl. R.C. No. 63 of 1996 in the Sessions Court, Trichy. The learned Sessions Judge rejected...
Zacharias N.S. Vs. Joint Director of School Education (Secondary) Coll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1146Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated November 24, 1989, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 3585 of 1990 for quashing the same and also for consequential direction, directing the second respondent to notionally reinstate him with full back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits including seniority and promotion. The same petitioner has filed another writ petition, namely, W.P.No. 15384 of 1991 seeking a direction for payment of post terminal benefits including pension together with interest forthwith without prejudice to the contention in Writ Petition No. 3 585 of 1990. In view of the issue involved in both the writ petitions, they are disposed of by the following common order.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- According to him, he joined services in the 2nd respondent as Secondary Grade Assistant on June 10, 1970. Even though he had unblemished record of service, disciplinary proceedings were i...
Sakunthala and ors. Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3653
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. These appeals could be disposed of by a common judgment, as the question of law raised in all these appeals is the same.2. The facts in C.A. No. 32 of 1993 are as follows :-Sakunthala, the appellant herein was found in possession of 15 kgs. of Ganja in her house and a case was registered against her under Section 20(b)(i) of N.D.P.S. Act. In this case, she was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month.3. The facts in C.A. No. 33 of 1993 :- Kullan, the appellant herein was found in possession of 15 kgs. of Ganja in his house and the case was filed against him under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In this case, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month.4. The facts in C.A. No. 34 of 1993 :- Chinnammal, the appellant herein was found in posses...
The Management of Sholayar Estate Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ605
C. Shivappa, J. 1. The appellant, being aggrieved against the order of remand, dated 30.8.1996 in W.P.No. 8273 of 1986, has challenged the same on the ground that the learned single Judge having noticed the misconduct being proved, erred in holding that the factors like length of service and the age of the workman would have to be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of punishment.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on a decision in (1980)1 L.L.N. 211, contended, that the length of service is not a criteria to decide the quantum of punishment and the finding of the learned Judge is opposed to the above principle.3. A Division Bench of this Court, in The Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. Sainson 1995 W.L.R. 379 has held that it is always open to the court to interfere, if it is of the opinion that the penalty imposed is harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.4. In Colour Chem Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar : [1998]1SCR663 , the Apex Court, while deal...
Dena Bank Vs. Guptha Iron and Steel Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad453; [1999]97CompCas294(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant.2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 12,700/-from the defendant. The plaintiff is a merchant in Iron and Steel. The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred as 'Board') issued a tender notice inviting tenders for the supply and delivery of various types of materials. The stipulation in the tender notice was that the tenderers should provide a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit. The plaintiff tendered his offers. The Tender notice also stipulated that on intimation of acceptance of the offer, the tenderer should remit security deposit, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- including the Earnest Money Deposit amount demanded and enter into an agreement as specified by the Board and failure to comply with the above will result in the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit of the tenderer. A further clause was also provided that if...
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ572
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 467 of 1984, O.S.No. 324 of 1984 and O.S.No. 466 of 1984 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Pondicherry, have preferred the second appeals aggrieved against the dismissal of A.S.No. 127 of 1985, 104 of 1985 and 126 of 1985 on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the judgments and decrees of the trial court by the common judgment dated 15.11.1985.2. The case in all the appeals in brief is as follows:The plaintiff is the respective suits filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is a dealer as per the licence given by the 3rd defendant only in Pondicherry and not a dealer in Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, the authorities other than, under the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act have no jurisdiction over the plaintiff or his business and the notices dated 18.6.1976 and 27.8.1986 issued by the first defendant are without jurisdiction and ultra vires and void and also for perman...
income Tax Officer Vs. Rathna and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1999
Reported in: (2001)68TTJ(Mad)475
ORDERD. K. Tyagi J.M.This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26-5-1991, on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 1,44,798 being the interest on borrowed funds utilised in construction of theatre.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm of contractors. The construction of the theatre which the assessee commenced has not been completed even till the assessment year under consideration. The assessee, in its return of income for the year under appeal has claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,44,798 on account of payment of interest on borrowed funds for construction of theatre which has been disallowed by the assessing officer, holding that it is not connected with the business of the assessee and that it has not yielded any income so far. The assessee appealed against this order of the assessing officer to the Commissioner (Appeals).3. At the time of hearing before the Commis...
M.S. Sivakumar Vs. the Director General of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Mad228
1. Petitioner in W. P. 1277of 1998 is the appellant before us.2. The relief sought for in the writ petition is for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to take action against respondents 5 and 6 and restore possession of the petition portion in the groundfloor of premises No. 567, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Madras-18 to the petitioner and direct respondents 1 to 6 to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to petitioner and pass such other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. Material facts may be summarised thus : 5th respondent, is the owner of the premises in question and it is the case of appellant that he has taken on monthly rent three rooms and a toilet in Door No. 567, Anna Salai, Madras located in the middle portion having an area of 580 sq. ft. for non-residential purposes. It is further case of appellant that two tenants adjoiing the said premises vacated and landlord also agreed to lease out the said premi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »