Chennai Court February 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.
V. Raja Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3918
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Raja, the appellant herein, challenging the conviction imposed upon him for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., has filed this appeal.2. The prosecution case is as follows :-(a) P.W.1 Alif Raja is residing in Kurumbapatti village in Palani. P.W.2, Chinnadurai is living in Madhanapuram in Palani. P.W. 3 Thandapani is residing at Palani Adivaram. All the three witnesses are friends. They used to play cards for stakes in poramboke land under a Karuvelan tree near Vaiyapuri Tank.(b) The occurrence took place on 15-3-87 at about 3.00 p.m. The appellant along with P.Ws. 1 to 3 gathered in the said place for playing cards on the fateful day. P.W.2 Chinnadurai spread a green cloth M.O.1 for playing cards. Thereafter, all the persons were gambling with playing cards M.O. 2 series. The deceased Rajendran, one of the players, was winning in all the games, whereas the appellant Rajendran was losing. Ultimately, the appellant lost all his money in the game. So, he could...
M. Mokkaiyan, President, Vaigai Dam Fishermen Co-operative Society Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ80
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 4197/E/98, dated 2.12.1998 and quash the same and pass such further orders. 2. Petitioner is the President of Vaigai Dam Fishermen Co-operative Society, Periakulam Taluk, Theni District.3. First respondent had issued a notice to petitioner on 2.12.1998 to consider no confidence motion against petitioner. In that notice, petitioner has been informed that special meeting will be held on 18.12.1998 and he received a requisition from six members of the Board out of seven members. Said notice is challenged in this writ petition as one without jurisdiction.4. It is the case of petitioner that none of members of Board here made request to him to convene meeting and so long as he has not been given notice, a requisition to first respondent for the first time will not give him jurisdiction to exercise powers under Co-operative Societies ...
R. Pachiappa Achary Vs. the Special Tahsildar, L.A. I, Tamil Nadu Hous ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ83
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioners seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Special Tahsildar, under Na.Ka.No. 4287/88-B2, dated 6.7.1989 and set aside the same and to direct him to make a reference under Section 28-A(3) read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of petitioner's 2/9th share in Survey No. 578/3 of a total extent of 55 cents and 2/6th share in Survey No. 582/82 of a total extent of 69 cents at Mogappair Village, Saidapet Taluk, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.2. An extent of 55 cents of wet land in Survey No. 578/3 and an extent of 69 cents of wet land in Survey No. 582/2 in Mogappair, Village, Saidapet Taluk, were notified for acquisition. According to petitioner, in the above said lands, 2/9th share belong to him, one Saroja is entitled to 1/9th share, one Pachai...
A. Mariammal Vs. S. Sudalaikannu thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ102
P. Thangavel, J.1. Appeal No. 849 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.3.1990 in O.S.No. 92 of 1985 and C.R.P.Nos. 3294 and 3295 of 1993 are preferred against common judgment and decree dated 4.3.1993 in R.C.A.Nos. 44 and 45 of 1990 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli.2. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 92 of 1985 is as follows: The suit properties and other properties were purchased by the plaintiff and Ebenesar Ammal by means of a registered sale deed dated 6.5.1955 for Rs. 8,500. In the partition that had taken place by means of a registered partition deed, the suit properties were allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in her own right by leasing them out to various tenants, including the 8th defendant, who was in occupation of the upstairs on a monthly rent of Rs. 500. The downstairs was...
The Deputy Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Oriental Insurance Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ238
S. S. Subramani, J.1. In both these revision petitions, defendants are the revision petitioners. Defendants are aggrieved by the ad-interim injunction granted by the lower court.2. Plaintiff was suspended from service, and the same is challenged in O.S.No. 1263 of 1998. I.A.No. 1051 of 1998 was filed in that case for injunction. Ad-interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, the very same plaintiff was charge-sheeted, and he filed O.S.No. 1591 of 1998. I.A.No. 1057 of 199.8 was filed in that case, and the same is the subject-matter of C.R.P.No. 3865 of 1998. In both the injunction petitions, ad-interim injunction was passed. In I.A.No. 1051 of 1998, the injunction order reads thus:Heard. Documents perused. Ad-interim injunction granted till 5.10.1998. Notice, Order 39, Rules land 3, to be complied with,In I.A.No. 1057 of 1998, the injunction order reads thus:Heard. Documents perused. Interim injunction granted till 10.12.98. Notice by then. Order 39, Rules 1 and 3 to be complied with...
M.A. Abdul Khuthoos Vs. Ganesh and Company Oil Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)242; [2001]103CompCas54(Mad); 1999CriLJ2432
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner by the complainant/respondent herein.2. According to the complainant, the petitioner/accused in discharge of the liability, issued two cheques one dated September 29, 1995, for Rs. 25,703 and another dated October 4, 1995, for a sum of Rs. 26,078 in favour of the complainant and the same were dishonoured on presentation on March 13, 1996.3. After issue of statutory notice, since no payment of the cheque amount was made, the complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner on April 25, 1996, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. When the complaint was presented, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, found that there was no signature by the complainant in the said complaint. So on the same date, it was returned with an endorsement that the petitioner's signature is not obtained...
Balakrishnan Vs. Tulasidas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2639
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The order in Crl. M.P. No. 4921/99 in C.C. No. 21/91 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul on 1-12-1998 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused to discharge him under Section 204, Cr. P.C. is under challenge before this Court in this Revision.2. On going through the petition, the impugned order and other documents field along with the Revision, the following facts have emerged:--(a) The complainant/respondent herein filed a private complaint in C.C. No. 21/97 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the complaint was taken on file, the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court in Crl. M. P. No. 2624/97 requesting for appointment of an expert to verify as to whether the date and the material particulars on the disputed cheque are written by the same person. The said application was he...
Kamalamma Vs. T. Murugan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas543(Mad); 1999(1)CTC364; (1999)IIMLJ528
ORDER1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in an unnumbered suit on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.2. Suit is one for recovery of money from defendants who were running a Private Finance by name 'Parvathi Fund'.3. According to petitioner, she paid amounts in the respondent finance, which respondents did not return which necessitated filing of the suit.4. Lower court refused to entertain the suit on the ground that suit is barred under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997.5. Reason given by lower court is that the transaction is covered by the said Act and Civil Courts have been barred to try such cases.6. I do not think the order of lower court is correct. The Act was intended to protect deposits made by public in financial establishments. Chapter II enables the Government to attach properties on default of return of deposits. For the said purpose, complaints, have to be received by Government from number of depositors that the F...
Abk Publications Ltd. and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2741
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. All these applications could be disposed of by a common order as the parties and the question of law involved are one and the same.2. The main point urged in these petitions for quashing the proceedings initiated for the offence under Section. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Mr. A. Natarajan, the counsel for the petitioners is that the cheques in question have been presented in the petitioners'-bank after six months from the date on which they were drawn and so, the complaints are not maintainable.3. The facts are these :- Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, the complainant/the respondent herein, is engaged in the business of manufacturing newsprint, writing paper and printing. The petitioners/accused, being the publisher of Telugu Jatteya Dhina Patrika Vartha (a Telugu Daily) placed certain orders with the complainant for the purchase of newsprint. Towards the discharge of the dues, the accused issued 77 cheques, all drawn on Andhra Bank, A...
Rajamani B. Vs. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1155Mad; (1999)IIMLJ26
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling of the records relating to the orders of the 1 st respondent, dated March 2, 1993, issued in Ref.No. 090400/PER/476/93, quash the same and direct the respondents to award 12 marks to the petitioner under the caption educational qualification basing on the certificate issued by the Indian Air Force, with all consequential benefits.2. Admittedly, the petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman, is entitled for the benefit of the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, regulating the re-employment of ex-servicemen in Central Civil Services and posts, as amended by the notification dated February 12, 1998 issued by the Government of India Clause (4) of which reads as follows:(4) For appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group C posts a matriculate ex-serviceman (which term includes an ex-serviceman, who has obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate in the Navy or the Air Force) who has pu...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »