Chennai Court November 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.
R. Paulsamy Vs. Superintendent, Narcotic Control Bureau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(70)ECC183
S. Thangaraj, J.1. The petitioner/accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 521/98 on the file of the Special Judge for NDPS Act cases, Madurai has filed this petition for his release on bail. 2. The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner and another accused for offences under Section 6(c) punishable under Sections 21, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and under Sections 193 and 120-B, IPC and the said complaint was taken on file by learned Special Judge for NDPS Act cases, Madurai in C.C. No. 521/98. 3. The petitioner herein and other accused are public servants employed under the Narcotic Control Bureau at Madurai and Tirunelveli respectively. The respondent received a specific information that the petitioner herein along with others was indulging in trafficking and that around 2 kgs. of heroin was in the possession of the petitioner at his room No. 116, Thiruchenduran Mansion, Vasantha Nagar, Madurai-5. On receipt of the information, the Officers of Narcotic Control Bureau, Sou...
Management, E.i.D. Parry India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1335Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner in W.P.SR. No. 70689 of 1999, the management of EID Parry India Limited, has taken out this application to permit the petitioner to file a single writ petition against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act), Chennai-6, the first respondent in LA. No. 140 to 179 of 1998 in P.G. Application Nos. 67 to 106 of 1999. Respondents Nos. 2 to 40 are the applicants in LA. Nos. 140 to 179 of 1998 in P.G. Application Nos. 67 to 106 of 1999 wherein they have sought for condonation of delay in filing the applications. The writ petitioner is the management and the petitioner-establishment is covered under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,which came into force on September 21, 1972.2. According to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner-management had been paying gratuity as prescribed, while excluding the incentive earnings for the purpose of gratuity.3. Responden...
Pioneer Miyagi Chemicals Vs. Central Board of Ex. and Cus.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC448; 2000(116)ELT441(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of declaration to declare the impugned Circular No. 47/1/97-CX, dated 3-3-1997 issued by the first respondent as ultra vires of Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Articles 14,19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India insofar as the petitioner is concerned.2. This Court ordered notice of motion on 18-6-1999. The service on the respondents was completed. On behalf of the respondents the 3rd respondent had filed the counter affidavit.3. Heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. V. Venkataswamy, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.4. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Di-Calcium Phosphate - Animal Feed Grade (DCP) out of animal bones which are subject to various processes. The petitioner classified the said product under sub-heading 2302.00 of the Central Excise Tariff attracting nil rate of duty, while the responde...
G. Madhavan Vs. Kotteswaran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC142; (2000)1MLJ685
ORDER1. The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur, dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.10 of 1999 in O.S.No.63 of 1991 on his file. The application purports to be under Order 18 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The affidavit filed in support of the application inter alia states as follows:The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance against the first respondent/first defendant. The second and the third respondents have been impleaded on the ground that they attempted to purchase the suit schedule item. The agreement of sale Ex.B-3 dated 26.11.1990 entered into between the second respondent and the first respondent is an antedated one and came into existence after the agreement for sale between the petitioner and the first respondent on 12.1.1991 under Ex.A-1. While the second respondent was being cross- examined, it was suggested to him that in themonth of...
Raymonds Woollen Mills Limited, Madras Vs. Mrs. Azra and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC642
ORDERJudgment pronounced by R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Appellant is the statutory tenant of the premises of which the respondents are admittedly some of the co-owners. It is the case of the respondents who as plaintiffs instituted C.S.No.225 of 1998, that the appellant tenant has embarked on a wholly impermissible activity against the wishes ofthe landlord-the activity being the demolition of a portion of the roof, rebuilding the same and strengthening the walls to support that roof in a portion of the premises. Area of the roof so sought to be rebuilt is said to be about 1000 sq.ft. That portion is located at the rear of the premises in the occupation of the tenant, and is in the mezzanine floor. Appellant runs a textile show room in the tenanted premises, which is situated in Anna Salai in Chennai. 2. Plaintiffs had applied for, and had obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the appellant from proceeding with that work of rebuilding the roof and strengthening the walls. It ...
S. Selvarajan Vs. A.K. Sakthivel and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC25; (2000)1MLJ528
ORDER1. The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate. Authority, Srivilliputhur, in R.C.A.No.40 of 1991 on his file confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Sattur, in R.C.O.P.No.21 of 1990. 2. The revision petitioner's eviction was sought on the ground of owner's occupation. 3. The case as set out in the eviction petition was as follows: The revision petitioner and the second respondent herein were the tenants in respect of the property belonging to the first respondent for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.300. The tenants agreed to vacate the premises and the tenancy got over in 1985. The first respondent/landlord required the building for his own use for the purpose of locating his business. He had been conducting the business under the name and style of 'Sakthirani Traders' in Door No.112, ICA Colony, Virudhunagar. It was a rented premises belonging to one Tmt.Mythili and the landladyhaving called u...
Kaliammal and Another Vs. D.C. Arunachalam and 6 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC136
ORDER1. Defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.No.19 of 1969 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore are the revision petitioners.2. The matter arises in execution. A decree was obtained by plaintiffs on 23.8.1972 declaring their right to use the cart track and defendants and their men were restrained by means of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs' right in the same.3. Alleging that the decree has not been obeyed and judgment debtors are causing obstruction to the cart tract, execution petition was filed and one of the relief sought for was to appoint Commissioner under Order 21, Rule 32(5) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to remove all types of obstructions caused in the 10 feet wide suit track and to implement the decree.4. Petitioners seriously objected the relief sought for, for, according to them they have not caused any obstruction but third party caused some obstruction and it is further contended that being a decree for permanent p...
C.L. Ravi Chandran Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR702(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. In all these writs, as the subject-matter involved and also the parties to the writs are one and the same, all these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of all the parties concerned.2. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petitions seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent made in G. I. R. No. 72-R/MDS of 1987-88, etc., dated November 11, 1991, and confirmed by the orders of the first respondent bearing No. R. P. Nos. 6 to 9 of 1992, dated February 21, 1992, and to quash the same.3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioner herein has filed separate affidavits narrating all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petitions as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter...
Chellaswamy K. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR15]; (2000)IILLJ1308Mad; (2000)1MLJ182
Jain, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order, dated November 17, 1998, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A.No. 529 of 1998, whereby the petitioner praying to quash the order of transfer was rejected.2. The petitioner submits that he is the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Employees Provident Fund Physically Handicapped Staff Welfare Association, Chennai, and is working with the third respondent. He is physically handicapped upto 65 per cent. It is submitted that he has been promoted as Section Supervisor on December 9 1997, and was transferred to Sub Regional Office, Salem, without following the norms. He gave a representation on June 11, 1998 and the said transfer was withdrawn. But, on June 18, 1998, the third respondent refused the request of the petitioner for retention and directed him to report for duty at Salem. This order of transfer is under challenge.3. The Tribunal, on consideration finding that as per the scheme of rota...
Ramar A. Vs. District Collector of Ramanathapuram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ820Mad
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. A. Ramar, the petitioner herein is seeking for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the file of the Collector. Ramanathapuram District, the first respondent herein, in his proceedings No. W1/75085/1991, dated April 29, 1992 and to quash the same.2. The facts that are required and relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:'The Commissioner, Mudukulathur Panchayat Union, the second respondent herein invited applications for the post of Noon Meal Organiser. The petitioner applied for the said post. He was asked to attend the interview on February 19, 1992. He attended the interview and produced all relevant records. He was selected by the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, the second respondent. The District Collector also issued orders appointing the petitioner as Noon Meal Organiser in his proceedings NAW1/19257/1992, dated March 5, 1992. The petitioner was directed to pay the security deposit. Accordingly, h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›