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.
Neelakanta Muthuraja Vs. Chinnammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC176
ORDER1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.590 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur against the petitioner/first defendant and second respondent/second defendant for maintenance and for possession of the first item in the suit properties. The Court below in the judgment dated 8.2.1988 directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.250/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the life time of the first respondent towards maintenance, besides creating a charge over the half share of the second item of the suit property, towards payment of the said maintenance, and for declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the first item of the suit properties, and to get possession of the same from the defendants. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the Execution Petition in E.P.No.68 of 1991 to recover the first item of the suit properties and possession was taken on 2.5.1991, Since the said maintenance was not paid as direc...
Neelakanta Muthuraja Vs. Chinnammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC226; (1999)IMLJ685
ORDER1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.590 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur against the petitioner/first defendant and second respondent/second defendant for maintenance and for possession of the first item in the suit properties. The court below in the judgment dated 8.2.1998 directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.250/-per month from the date of filing of the suit till the life time of the first respondent towards maintenance, besides creating a charge over the half share of the second item of the suit property, towards payment of the said maintenance, and for declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the first item of the suit properties, and to get possession of the same from the defendants. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the execution petition in E.P.No.68 of 1991 to recover the first item of the suit properties and possession was taken on 2.5.1991. Since the said maintenance was not paid as direct...
Arokiadoss M.A. Vs. Management of R.M. Mehta and R.M. Mehta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ23Mad
P. SATHASIVAM, J.1. Aggrieved by the award passed in I.D.No. 344 of 1988, dated August 31, 1990, by the Second Additional Labour Court, Madras, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The first respondent is an industry owning and maintaining several flats/houses and he entered service under the respondent on May 6, 1969 as a liftman-cum-electrician/plumber. All of a sudden, he was terminated from service on and from September 1, 1987. He was requesting the management on various occasions to confirm his services and to increase his salary, and the respondent was greatly prejudiced by the same, hence the management has terminated him from service on and from September 1, 1987. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 750 per month at the time of his termination from service. His juniors are still retained in service whereas he alone has been subjected to hostile discrimination and terminated without assigning any reason for the sa...
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Vs. Melo Leather Manufacturers and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2934
K. Natarajan, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board by its Member, Secretary Dr. M. Mariappan represented by Thiru, K. Renganathan, District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chengalpattu (South) against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Tambaram dated 2-9-1991 in C.C. No. 781 of 1989. By the said judgment the respondents/ accused were convicted for violation of Section 25(5) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 punishable under Section 44 of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate had sentenced the first respondent company to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and the second respondent/second accused proprietor to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. This appeal has been preferred by the Pollusion Control Board with the prayer that the learned Magistrate having found the respon...
Leo Oils and Lubricants Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC388; 1999(111)ELT700(Mad)
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. In all these writ petitions the parties are same. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the order of the first respondent dismissing the application of the petitioners for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the orders of the second respondent.2. Since the question involved in these writ petitions is whether the first respondent has exercised his discretionary power in a judicious manner in rejecting the application for condoning the delay. I am of the view that there is no need to discuss the facts elaborately.3. The petitioner has received the orders of the second respondent on 29-3-1998, 15-4-1998 and 17-4-1998, respectively. Against which, the appeals were preferred before the first respondent with a delay of 91 days, 83 days and 81 days, respectively. The petitioner also has filed an application for condoning the delay as per Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The reason given by the petitioner for the delay is ...
Smt. Krishnavani and ors. Vs. Estate Officer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearanc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad338
Shivaraj Patil, Actg. C.J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that on the previous occasion, this Court directed the writ petition to be posted with an understanding that the writ petition itself will be heard on merits, as the writ appeal was directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition in the absence of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and refusing to restore the writ petition. The learned counsel submitted that this writ petition may be heard on merits.3. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge under appeal is set aside and we took the writ petition for consideration of merits, as requested by the learned counsel for the parties.4. In the writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity and correctness of the notice in Na. Ka. No. 573/C/91 dat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›