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.
B. Kannan Vs. B.C. Santhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2236
ORDERM. Kakpagavinayagam, J. 1. The order rejecting the prayer made in the application filed by the petitioner/ accused before the trial Court to discharge him in the proceedings initiated for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is being challenged in this Revision.2. The point put in issue in this case is as to whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable, when there is already insolvency proceedings pending before the Insolvency Court, in which at the instance of the petitioner/accused, the complainant is shown as one of the creditors.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the respondent/complainant filed a complaint dated 15-4-91, the petitioner/accused, much earlier to the initiation of the criminal proceedings, filed an Insolvency Petition in I.P. No. 3/90 before the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram on 5-11 -90 and that therefore, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument...
M. Chakrapani Vs. the Commissioner Corporation of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ693
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in proceedings G.O.(D) No. 22, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 15.10.1990 on the file of the third respondent herein confirming the order of the first respondent herein dated 27.6.1989 passed in Proceedings No. V.O.C. Vg.C.I/2559/82-1 and quash the order of the third respondent and direct the first respondent to pay the arrears of increments recovered from his retirement benefits.2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has joined the services of the first respondent Corporation in 1950 as an overseer. He was promoted and appointed as Supervisor in the year 1962 in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Civil). In 1974, he was promoted and appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer a Class II post in the Corporation establishment and functioned as such in Water Works and Drainage Departments of Corporation of Madras till ...
P.T. Joseph Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(108)ELT338(Mad)
ORDERB. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. The petitioners are seeking bail. All the petitions have arisen in this way :-A consignment of 14 packages of leather jackets under Bill No. 020-21551592, dated 10-11-1997 by . Sri Ram Leather Exports, No. 99, Dr. Muthulakshmi Road, Porur to . Arnado Leathers, Johenasburg, South Africa, through Lufthansa Flight No. LH-0511 scheduled to take off on the night of 13-11-1997 was intercepted by the respondent and on examination, it was found containing 382.043 Kgs. of Mandrax tablets and 14.618 Kgs. of white powder in 10 packages. Further investigation led to the discovery of the following facts :- . Sriram Leather Exports is a non-existing company. All the accused entered into a conspiracy to export the Mandrax Tablets which is a psychotropic substance from India to South Africa. An earlier attempt was made during October, 1997 to illegally export the narcotic substances by concealing them in cotton bales, but due to the tight vigilancy the respondent, th...
Nagarajan Vs. Rajamani Aiyar and Seven Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC428; (1999)IIMLJ542
ORDER1. The fifth defendant in O.S.No.51 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif, Nannilam, is the appellant in the second appeal. The first defendant was the brother of the first respondent. The first respondent filed the suit forrecovery of possession and future profits against the first defendant. Pending suit he died and his wife and children were brought on record as defendants 2 to 10. The second defendant, wife of the first defendant also died pending suit and defendants 3 to 10 were recorded as her legal representatives. Defendants 3 to 10 adopted the written statement of the first defendant in the suit. Only the fifth defendant effectively contested the suit.2. The case as set out in the plaint was as follows:The suit property, a house property, was the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the first defendant. In a partition this was allotted to the plaintiff on 21.2.1956. He permitted the first defendant to live in the suit house from the year 1975 and his status was th...
Rm.Al. Visalakshi Achi (Died) and Two Others Vs. Rm. Seenivasan and Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC57
ORDER1. The Plaintiff was the sole appellant. Pending second appeal she died and her legal representatives have come on record as appellants 2 and 3. She filed suit O.S.No.274/83 before the District Munsif's Court, Devakottai, for recovery of Rs.7102.51 due from the respondents on the following averments:The first respondent's father one Ramanathan Chettiar and his brother were doing banking business in penang with head quarters at Karaikudi. The first appellant had deposited various amounts with the first respondent's fathercommencing from 17.10.1959 and on the date of the filing of the suit, it had augmented to 3977.41 Malaysian Dollars. The said Ramanathan Chettiar had forwarded a deposit letter dated 18.10.1959 with an agreement to pay higher interest than what was payable at Penang. Ramanathan Chettiar died in or about August, 1982 and his legal representatives, the present respondents, were liable to answer the suit claim, in that they had succeeded to the estate of Ramanathan Ch...
K. Seethalakshmi Vs. Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas532(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. Criminal Revision Case No. 114 of 1996--A. complaint was filed by the Registrar of Companies under sections 159 and 162 of the Companies Act, 1956, against South India Oil Complex Limited as the first accused and Sri K.K. Kunchi Krishna Poduval, the managing director of the first accused-company as the second accused. The allegation is as follows :2. The company and its directors are under statutory obligation to file with the complainant an annual return in the prescribed form made up to the date of the annual general meeting and in default, the company and every officer of the company, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 50 for every day during which the default continues. The annual general meeting of the company in the year 1991 should have been held latest by September 30, 1991, and the annual return made up to that date should have been filed with the complainant on or before November 28, 1991. A default notice was issued by the complainant to the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Franco Tosi Ingegneria
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR268(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had commenced its business in India from April 13, 1981, when it secured and accepted the letter of intent from Neyveli Lignite Corporation and not from October 1, 1981, when it opened its site office at Neyveli, and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to the expenditure claimed by it from that date viz., April 13, 1981 ?'2. The assessee is a non-resident company, which secured a letter of intent from Neyveli Lignite Corporation on April 13, 1981, for carrying out certain works to establish a project office and to commence activities in India from that date. However, it secured the approval of the Reserve Bank of India for establishing its project office only subsequently. It also obtained the registration under the Companies Act subsequent to April 13, ...
L. Manoharan and ors. Vs. A. Ramathilagam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ526
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 208 of 1991 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Madurai Taluk, have preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal in I.A. No. 24 of 1998, dated 25.9.1998.2. The petitioners/defendants filed a petition under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection preferably by the previous Commissioner, directing him to identify and locate the properties purchased by the plaintiffs and the defendants in survey No. 401/1 after fixing the boundaries and also to locate the disputed property with reference to the sale deeds of both parties and to note the other things that may be pointed out by the parties at the time of inspection and to submit a report with plan.3. The respondents/plaintiffs opposed the application, and after hearing both sides, the lower court dismissed the petition and aggrieved against this, the present revision is filed.4. The learned Counsel for t...
Kulandaisami and Another Vs. Lourdusami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC329; (1999)IIMLJ498
ORDERTamil Nadu Act, 1976;1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.200 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvaiyaru, who have succeeded before the trial Courtand lost before the first appellate Court are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur made in A.S.No.105 of 1986 in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granting a decree as prayed for by the respondent/plaintiff. 2. At the time of admission, the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court: 1) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the suit claim is not barred by limitation especially when the suit is filed beyond the period of three years from the date of first endorsement and the second endorsement is more than 3 years and 2 days after the date of the first endorsement? 2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in assuming that the defendant...
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Non-teaching Staff Association Coim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC545; (1999)IIMLJ10
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the impugned proceedings No.R2.B.M.VIII.23/90 dated 12.11.1990 of the Tamil Nadu G.D.Naidu Agricultural University insofar as it relates to Non-Teaching Staff Association issued by the first respondent and quash the same. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Non-teaching Staff Association, coimbatore aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, issued in proceedings No.R2.B.M.VIII.23/90 dated 12.11.1990 categorising almost all the non-teaching staff as essential services and also declaring that the employees of non- teaching staff classified under the essential services, who are involved in the illegal activities including strikes are liable for immediate suspension without following the usual procedure and steps. The case of the petitioner'sAssociation is that they have been making representations for improving the conditions of the n...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »