Chennai Court February 1999 Judgments
Rajendran Vs. T.K. Ramadoss Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ451
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 189 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge at Tiruvallur dated 16th October 1986 made in A.S.No. 48 of 1985 in confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court 31.1.1985 made in O.S.No. 189 of 1982. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the two courts below is the appellant.2. Heard Mr. N. Jayabalan for the appellant and Mr. V.K. Rajagopalan for the respondent.3. For convenience, the parties to this second appeal will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.4. The plaintiff is the son of the second defendant. The first defendant is the alienee of the suit property. The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The suit property, it is claimed is the absolute property of the plaintiff and the same was bequeathed in his favour under a registered will date...
Tag this Judgment!Santhanam and Another Vs. R. Chandravelu and the Tamil Nadu Housing Bo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC518
ORDER1. In these Original Petitions, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, represented by its Chairman, and the Superintending Engineer, World Bank Circle, entered into various three different agreements with the Contractor R. Chandravelu for the execution of the work. Subsequently, disputes arose between parties and they approached this Court by way of Civil Suits and applications. One Mr.R. Santhanam, Advocate was appointed as Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator passed an award under three different agreements, entered into between the parties. Learned Arbitrator has filed 3 different. Original Petitions under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for receiving the award and to pass a decree in terms of the said award. Aggrieved by the awards the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed Original Petitions challenging the said award passed by the Arbitrator. All these Original Petitions were heard together as requested by both the parties and almost every ground raised in those petitions are...
Tag this Judgment!C. Srinivasa Rao and Etc. Vs. P. Ramankutty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad317
ORDERS. Thangaraj, J. 1. In these Original Petitions, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, represented by it's Chairman, The Superintending Engineer, World Bank Circle and the Executive Engineer, S & S Division III, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, entered into six different agreements with the Contractor P. Ramankutty for the execution of the Work. Subsequently, disputes arose between parties and they approached this Court by way of Civil Suits and applications. One Mr. C. Srinivasa Rao, Chief Engineer (Rtd.) Railways was appointed as Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator passed six different awards under six different agreements, entered into between the parties. Learned Arbitrator has filed six different Original Petitions under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for receiving the awards and to pass a decree in terms of the said awards. Aggrieved by the awards. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has filed Original Petitions challenging the said awards passed by the Arbitrator. All these Origin...
Tag this Judgment!Shivan and Etc. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4153
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. The two appellants who are brothers were tried by the Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1998 and the Sessions Judge by a Judgment dated 30-6-1989 convicted the Appellant No. 1 under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to under go three years rigorous imprisonment whereas Appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Sections 302 and 324, I.P. C. on two counts and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and rigorous imprisonment for three years for each count with the further direction that the said sentence should run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence have been challenged in this criminal appeal. The charge against Al was under Sections 302 read with 109 and 34, I.P. C. and under Section 324,I.P. C. Whereas the appellant No. 2 was charged for an offence under Sections 302 and 324,I.P. C. on two counts as mentioned above.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :-P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 are the son and daughter of the...
Tag this Judgment!Psg College of Arts and Science and Etc. Vs. Registrar, Bharathiyar Un ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad293
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In W. P. No. 10499 of 1996, petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarifiled mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned Proceedings of respondent, namely, his Proceedings No. 15843/A1/95 dated 18-4-1996 and quash the same in so far as it defers the consideration of the claim of petitioner for starting new Courses, and consequently direct the respondent to consider the claims of petitioner for starting new Courses for the ensuing academic year, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition which is sworn to by the Secretary of the petitioner-College, it is said that the Institution is run by PSG and Sons Charities, which is a public and Charitable Trust. It has been given an autonomous status by the respondent-University in the year 1978 and ever since that date the Institution is functioning without any complaint from any quarters. While so, on 21-...
Tag this Judgment!Vadivelu K. Vs. Committee of Management of Pachaiyappa's Trust rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1292Mad
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J. 1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents made in Ref. No. A5/9347, dated September 30, 1989 and Ref. No. A5/9347 dated November 22, 1989 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner till his normal date of superannuation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as an Engineer in the Pachaiyappa's Trust in the year 1970 on a regular basis. He has also argued that the conditions of service of the persons employed in the Pachaiyappa's Trust are governed by the same conditions of service pertaining to Government employees employed in the Directorate of Collegiate Education. The age of superannuation of the employees employed in the Trust is 58 years. As the Trust has a number of buildings both residential and non-residential, it requires repairs and maintenance work. The petitioner being the on...
Tag this Judgment!Habibul Kareem Vs. Asst. Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2209
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Habibul Kareem of Panaikulam, Ramnad District, the petitioner herein, has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking for the following prayer :-The petitioner therefore prays that this Honorable Court may be pleased to transfer the Criminal Case E.O.C.C. No. 1242/90 from the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Madras to the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. I), Egmore, Madras or to any other competent Court and render justice. 2. Mr. K. A. Jabber, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his prayer, brought out some instances in order to show that the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Madras has developed hostile attitude towards the petitioner/accused, thereby the petitioner has a reasonable apprehension that he cannot get justice and so, the transfer of the case from his Court is quite essential.3. This petition is stoutly resisted by Mr. Senthil Kumar, the Special Public Prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Babu and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4906
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. In S.C.No. 71 of 1988 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore, the appellants 1 to 3 were convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and the appellants 4 and 5 were convicted for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34,1.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of one Punniyanathan on 10-8-1987 at Ranipet.2. There are totally 14 accused and except the appellants A 1 to A5 all the other accused were acquitted. The facts leading to the conviction could be summarised as follows :-(a) The deceased one Punniyanathan joined as Manager in Appollo Tubes Ltd. at Ranipet in August 1987. There are two Unions. One is run by the accused and the other union is supported by the Management in which PW2 was taking active part. The management did not recognise the union represented by the accused. The first appellant was terminated from service on 5-12-1984. The second appellant was dismissed on 24-4-198...
Tag this Judgment!Pitchai Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3940
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. The appellant-Pitchai was accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 69 of 1989 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. He was tried along with two others for an offence of murder of one Dhevaraj and also for causing injuries with dangerous weapon to W 1. The accused 2 and 3 were acquitted whereas the present appellant was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment. However, he was acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 324,I.P.C. The said conviction and sentence have been challenged in this criminal appeal.2. The prosecution's case in brief is as follows-P.W. 1 Neelavathi is the wife of Dhevaraj, the deceased. They lived in Dower Camp. Al is the son of A2 and A3. A3 being the wife of A2, they were also residents of that area. Deceased-Dhevaraj was working as Security Guard in Elec-tricity Board. He was also a Panchayat President. The house of one Mayandi P.W. 5 is situated north of the accused.3. One...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vadivelu Vs. the Committee of Management of Pachaiyappa's Trust rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ681
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents made in Ref. No. A5/ 9347, dated 30.9.1989 and Ref. No. A5/9347, dated 22.11.1989 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner till his normal date of superannuation.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as an Engineer in the Pachaiyappa's Trust in the year 1970 on a regular basis. He has also argued that the conditions of service of the persons employed in the Pachaiyappa's Trust are governed by the same conditions of service pertaining to Government employees employed in the Directorate of collegiate Education. The age of superannuation of the employees employed in the Trust in 58 years. As the Trust has a number of buildings both residential and non-residential, it requires repairs and maintenance work. The petitioner being the only Civil Enginee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »