Chennai Court December 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.
Tmt. Rebecca and 2 Others Vs. State Rep by Inspector of Police Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1999
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas810(Mad); 2000(2)CTC653
ORDER1. The petitioners seek to quash the charge made in C.C.No.8 of 1998 on the file of the Special Court constituted under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. According to the petitioners, even though they are partners of a firm called Omega Commercial Credits and Investments, having office at 18, SouthBoag Road, T. Nagar, Madras 17, they are not active partners of the said firm not they participate in any of the affairs or business of the firm, such as collecting the deposits, etc., on behalf of the firm.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that neither the FIR lodged by one D.V. Ramana Reddy, residing at 3, 4th Circular Road, Jawahar Nagar, Madras 82, nor the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. in pursuance of the said FIR, discloses any allegation against the petitioners.4. Even though it is complained that the said company arrayed as A1 and its managing partner arrayed as A2, who is nonetheles...
Jayakrishan Vs. the Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1548
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the detention order passed against one Anandan alias Athiradi Anandan which is dated 1-7-1999 and passed by the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, directing the detention of the detenu under view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In support of this order, the authority concerned has given the grounds. It is suggested that on 30-11-1997 one Dhandapani and his son came to Coimbatore Medical College to pay homage to the body of a Police Constable who was killed. At that time, the persons who had gathered there attacked the said Dhandapani and his son with an intention to cause their death and caused injuries. This was done at the instigation of the Anandan alias Athiradi Anandan and Sampath alias Arjun Sampath who were present there at that time. It is then suggested that these two persons instigated the mob to damage the Ambassador cars and the other vehicles as a result of which,...
M.A. Raja Vs. S. Vedhantham Pillai and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC199
ORDER1. This revision petition arises in execution in O.S.No.422 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif Court, Mettur.2. First respondent herein has obtained a decree, which reads thus,'(i) That the defendants and their men be and are, hereby permanently restrained by a permanent injunction from a ny manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properly by the plaintiff.(ii) that the defendants be and are hereby directed by a mandatory injunction to demolish and remove the building constructed by then) in the suit property in S.No.2/A/2 obstructing the entrance marked as 'A' in Ex.C2 Commis-sioner's plan attached herewith to the building of the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from this date.(iii) that in default of such removal by the defendant within 3 months stated in decree in plan is at liberty to take appropriate steps for such removal'The decree is dated 30.8.1981. Decree holder filed E.P.200 of 1986 to execute the decree, by appointment of Comm...
Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas162(Mad)
ORDER1. The Madras Aluminium Company Limited is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The company incurred heavy losses and finally it came under the purview of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, in the year 1987. The company was registered with the BIFR as a sick unit. The Board issued a notice on June 5, 1991, asking the company to show cause as to why it should not be wound up. Against this notice, the company filed a writ petition before the High Court, Madras, in July, 1991, and obtained stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by the BIFR.2. The Madras Aluminium Company Limited has represented to the Government seeking certain reliefs and concessions for the revival of the company. The Government have carefully examined the various requests made by the company. Considering the interests of a large number of workers who will face unemployment if the company is wound up and with a view to revi...
Principal, St. Sebastian Industrial Training Institute and anr. Vs. Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ333Mad; (2000)1MLJ570
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. In both the above writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same. Since the facts and circumstances and the question of law connected to both being similar, a common order is passed in both the above writ petitions.2. So far as the W.P. No. 11046 of 1991 is concerned, the petitioner prays to issue a writ of certiorari or any writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records relating to the Award dated March 21, 1991 and made in I.D. No. 1075 of 1989 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.3. So far as the other Writ Petition No. 11047 of 1991 is concerned, the petitioner has prayed to issue the writ of certiorari or any writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records relating to the Award dated March 19, 1991 and made in I.D. No. 880 of 1989 on the file of the first respondent, and quash the same.4. Regarding the facts of W.P. No. 11046 of 1991 as brought forth in the affidavit filed in suppo...
Krishnan M. Vs. Management of Terrace Estate and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR520]; (2000)IIILLJ805Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since in these writ petitions, the subject-matter involved and also the respondents are one and the same, both these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein seeking for writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein in I.A. Nos. 314 and 316 of 1986, dated October 5, 1990, including the preliminary order, dated July 19, 1990, and to quash the same.3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits 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 petitions as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, the first respondent has filed a cou...
Siva Springs Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(117)ELT297(Mad)
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent culminating in his order C. No. V/73.08/15/3/90, Adjourned, dated 8-8-1991 to quash the same and to remand the matter with a direction to the first respondent to give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, copies of the replies of respondents 2 and 3 and a joint hearing of all parties.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in this case, the first respondent has violated the principles of natural justice as the replies so filed by respondents 2 and 3 have not been served on the petitioners. The other point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after hearing the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners, the first respondent has not issued any notice of hearing in respect of subsequent dates when respondents 2 and 3 were heard.3. The first respondent has heard the matter at length and it was entered in ...
A. Rajangam Vs. A. Mohammed Hani and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC215; (2000)IIMLJ51
ORDER1. The petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Vridhachalam Municipality in the year 1996. The first respondent filed a petition in O.P.No.15 of 1999 under Section 51(1) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920 to decide about the disqualification of the petitioner, under section 50(1)(d) of the said Act. According to the 1st respondent, who is the Councilor of the said municipality, the petitioner's undivided son and his undivided brother are registered contractors of the said municipality on and from 25.10.1996 on which date the petitioner was elected as Chairman. On that basis it was alleged that the petitioner has acquired an interest in the subsisting contract with the Vridhachalam municipality and so he has to be disqualified, to hold the said post under section 50(1)(d) of the said Act.2. The said petition was contested but the petitioner alleging that he did not acquire any interest in the subsisting contract with respect to the allegation regarding his son...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›