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.
Raniammal and 2 Others Vs. Divisional Electrical Engineer Tamil Nadu E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC181
ORDER1. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 who are unsuccessful before the two courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law were framed:-1. Whether the lower appellate court was right in thinking that the vesting under the Tamil Nadu Electric Supply under taking acquisition Act 29 of 1954 would give a fresh starting point for limitation?2. Whether electricity supply can be disconnected even though the arrears are not with regard to the particular sought to be disconnected?3. Whether the right of disconnection for non-payment of arrears can be exercised in respect of time barred arrears also?2. Admittedly the plaintiffs owned a factory at Kumbakonam as well as a house and they had secured electricity connection for the Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation, which was an electricity undertaking and the said undertaking was acquired by the state of Tamil Nadu and transferred to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The acquisition ...
Bharath N. Mehtha and Another Vs. Mansi Finance (Chennai)ltd. by Its A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)595; 1999CriLJ2929; 1999(1)CTC687
ORDER1. Since the question involved in these two petitions for quashing is common, it is desirable to dispose of these petitions by a common order.2. The question posed before this Court is this:'Whether the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable as against the accused, when the said accused was already declared as an insolvent in the insolvency proceedings?'3. The facts in Crl.O.P.No. 704 of 99 these Bharat N. Metha, the petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by the respondent. According to the complainant, a cheque for Rs. 10,000 was issued by the petitioner to the complainant towards discharge of a loan and it was dishonoured on 25.4.1998. On 30.4.1998, the statutory notice was sent and the same was received by the accused. However, no payment was made. Therefore, on 27.5.1998, the respondent complainant filed a complaint in C.C. No. 4161 of 1998 before th...
K.P. Janaki Ammal and 8 Others Vs. K. Badrinarayanaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC46; (1999)IMLJ698
ORDER1. Before extracting in this order as to what is the question of law involved, it is better I trace the facts preceding to the filing of this revision. The revision petitioners are the tenants and the respondent is the landlord and their respective rights are protected under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980,hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act. The premises in question is non-residential in nature. The contractual rent was Rs. 1,750.00 per month. The landlord filed R.C.O.P.No. 2177 of 1985 before the Rent Controller, Madras, under Section 4 of the Rent Act. That petition was filed on 16.7.1985. By order dated 19.4.1988, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 6,335.00 per month. The tenants filed R.C.A.No.360 of 1988 questioning the correctness of the abovereferred to order. The landlord not satisfied with the quantum of fair rent, filed R.C.A, No.464 of 1988. On 12.1.1990, the Appellate Authority p...
K. Sivanandam Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Special Police Es ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2442; 1999(2)CTC252
Judgment Pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The impugned order dated 18.8.1998 passed in Crl.M.P.No.158 of 1998 in C.C.No. 227 of 1997 on the file of learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/accused in the case for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, requesting for summoning of the documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is under challenge before this Court in this Revision. 2. The short facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision, are summarised as follows: 'The petitioner was working as Junior Telecom Officer, Flower Bazaar External IV Exchange, Madras Telephones. He was arrested in the above case for having allegedly received a bribe of Rs. 500. The C.B.I., the respondent after finishing investigation and on obtaining sanction, filed the case before the trial court, which was taken on file in C.C.No. 227 of 1997 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of ...
P. Rani Vs. District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad349
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of the Election Tribunal (Principal District Judge, Chengleput) in the Election Petition No. 226/96 wherein the petitioner's election as the President of Ramacherri village Panchayat had been set aside.2. The petitioner as well as the second respondent contested for the post of the President of the Village Panchayat of Ramancherri Village, Tiruveilore Taluk, Chengleput District in the election held on 9-10-96. The counting of votes was done on 14-10-96. The petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 4 votes. The second respondent herein filed an election petition 226 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengleput challenging the said election, alleging that the votes were tampered and counting was done erroneously and the fifth respondent who is the member of the Legislative Assembly ordered recounting. In the recounting the result of the election was declared in favour of the p...
Boomayil Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2738
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Boomayil, the wife of one Muthuramalingam, the accused in a murder case in which one Leelavathy, Municipal Councilor of Madurai was done to death, has filed this petition, probably to ventilate the grievance of her husband Muthuramalingam, for direction from this Court to be issued to the respondents 1 to 4 to handover the case for reinvestigation by C.B.I. and to give a further direction to the C.B.I. to take up the case for reinvestigation.2. The details which are given in the affidavit filed by the petitioner for seeking the said relief, in her own words are given hereunder :-My husband Muthuramalingam is a member of D.M.K. Party since his childhood. He was elected as D.M.K. Secretary of 59th Ward. Tmt. Leelavathy, who belongs to Communist Party of India (Marxist) was elected as Councilor for 59th Ward on 31 -10-96 defeating one Tmt. Valli, who contested on behalf of the D.M.K. Party. On 23-4-97, the said Leelavathy was murdered near her residence at ...
S.B. Steels Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
Reported in: 2000(68)ECC264; 2000(115)ELT287(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Podanur Range, third respondent herein, in O.C. No. 1083/91, dated 2-5-1991 and O.C. No. 2094/91, dated 20-5-1991, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to quash those orders on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :-The petitioner firm was manufacturing M.S. Bars, M.S. Angle, M.S. Plates classified under sub-headings 7209.90; 7210.10 and 7209.10 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. On 1-4-1987 the petitioner leased out its plant, Machinery and Building to M/s. Modern Steel Industries, Coimbatore for manufacturing the above said item. The lease period came to the end on 1-4-1990. On the expiry of the said period, the lessees surrendered the possession of the plant, machinery and building to the petitioner on 10-1-1991. The handing over and taking over of possession are vouched by records. After the petitioner made arrangeme...
R. Jayakumar Vs. P. Kaliyaperumal and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC202
ORDER1. The landlord in the application filed by the tenants for fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 is the revision petitioner. The respondents in this revision are the legal representatives of the tenant Ponnusamy in that proceedings, which was take on file as Fair Rent Application No. 40 of 1981 by the Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai. In the fair rent application the tenants filed a petition to amend the extent of the lands in their occupation from 4.06 acres to 3.65 acres. Though opposed by the landlord, that application was allowed by order dated 15.3.1989 by the Revenue Court. An appeal filed by the landlord in Appeal No. 17 of 1990 before the Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai (Revenue Tribunal) was also dismissed. Hence the present revision.2. Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order under challenge passed by the Revenue Court and affirmed by the appellate Tribunal is without author...
R. Jayakumar Vs. P. Kaliyaperumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ214
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The landlord in the application filed by the tenants for fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 is the revision petitioner. The respondents in this revision are the legal representatives of the tenant Ponnusamy in that proceedings, which was taken on file as Fair Rent Application No. 40 of 1981 by the Revenue Court, Mayiladuthurai. In the fair rent application the tenants filed a petition to amend the extent of the lands in their occupation from 4.06 acres to 3.65 acres. Though opposed by the landlord, that application was allowed by order dated 15.3.1989 by the Revenue Court. An appeal filed by the landlord in Appeal No. 17 of 1990 before the Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai (Revenue Tribunal) was also dismissed. Hence, the present revision.2. Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order under challenge passed by the Revenue Court and affirmed by the appellate tr...
S.R.V. Mohamed Esmal Vs. A.S. Sevari Cruz
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ13
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Madurai, In A.S. No. 27 of 1986 reversing the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in O.S. No. 387 of 1979. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in the present appeal.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on two promissory notes praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 29,474.60 with subsequent interest at 9 per cent per annum on Rs. 17,000 from the date of plaint till date of decree and at 6% from the date of decree till realisation.3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 from the plaintiff on 5.12.1970 promising to repay with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The defendant did not pay any money thereafter though he had promised to repay in six months time. Thereafter, the plaintiff was insisting on payment and at last on 4.12.1973 the defendant made a payment of Rs. 50 towards the interest and principal and made endor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »