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.
R. Vijayalakshmi Vs. Krishnaveni Lakshmaiyya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad391
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner in Election O. P. 161 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Judge, Changalpattu/Election Tribunal, constituted under Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, is the revision petitioner herein. This revision is filed challenging the order of Tribunal dismissing her election petition. 2. Election to District Panchayat Ward member -- Ward No. 5 Thiruvelangadu constituency was held on 9-10-1996. It is women constituency. Petitioner contested election and she was allotted the symbol of two leaves. First respondent was given cycle symbol. In that election, first respondent was declared elected by a majority of more than 7000 votes.3. In the election petition it is said that the election of first respondent is void for various reasons. It is said that first respondent registered her name in two villages as voter against the provisions of Section 18 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, and against Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and Rules. First respondent's name has been...
P.V.R.S. Manikumar Vs. Krishna Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)182; 1999CriLJ2010
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is a peculiar case wherein both the petitioner/accused and the counsel for the accused are accused of suppression of facts as well as misleading of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, the Sessions Court and this Court.2. The factual matrix, which are quite interesting and equally disturbing, are given below :-(a) P.V.R.S. Manikumar, the petitioner herein, is the accused in C.C. No. 3316 of 1998 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on a private complaint filed by Krishna Reddy, the respondent herein, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.(b) According to the complaint, the accused gave two cheques dated 15-12-1997 and 31-3-1998 for Rs. 6,50,000/- and Rs. 7,25,920/- respectively. The first cheque was towards the principal and the second cheque was towards the interest as reckoned up to 31-3-98. These cheques were presented on 31-3-98 and the same were dishonoured on 2-4-98. On 6-4-98, the com...
N. Vijayakumar Vs. the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ98
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, first respondent in both these writ petitions, invited applications for filling up the post of Librarian. Third respondent herein was appointed. The same is challenged by petitioner in W.P. No. 12574 of 1991.2. Before coming to discuss these writ petitions, certain facts require narration.3. The Government of Tamil Nadu, as per G.O.Ms. No. 1912 (Home), dated 1.9.1988, sanctioned the employment of a Librarian for a period of one year from the date of employment or till the need ceases, whichever is earlier. For one temporary post of Librarian and two Technical Assistant for the Library of High Court, Madras, applications were invited, and it was found that there were 23 applicants for the post of Librarian. Dr. David Annoussami, J. a learned Judge of this Court, was requested to conduct an interview to select a suitable candidate. The interview could not be conducted since the learned Judge was appointed as Vice Chairman-...
S. Sivamani and ors. Vs. Director of Technical Education and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ97
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. All these writ petitions are filed by the students of second respondent-College. They were not permitted to write the examination by the second respondent on the ground that there were no sufficient attendance and also for the reason that some of them have issued certain pamphlets against the Principal.2. When the writ petitions came for admission, learned Judge of this Court admitted them and also permitted all the writ petitioners to write the examination. Consequently, they have also written the examination.3. At the time of argument, I heard the learned Government Advocate also. The only question that should be considered is what should he the relief that is to be granted to these petitioners.4. In Shri Krishnan v. The Kurushetra University, Kurushetra : AIR1976SC376 , their Lordships held that once the examination fee has been accepted, normally, the candidates are entitled to right the examination. Their Lordships also held that it is the duty of the Hea...
P. Ganapathy Vs. A. Marimuthu Pillay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2933; 1999(1)CTC527
ORDER1. This Revision is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil dated 19.1.99 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused praying for discharge.2. Mr.N. Rajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the decisions in James Khan and another v. Thomas cook India Ltd, 1995 (1) L.W. 277; K. Kumar v. M/s. Bapsons Foot wear, 1993 L.W. 600 and Uplanche Mallikarjun v. Rat Kanti Vimala, 1997 Cri. L.J. 4237 would contend that in the case filed against the petitioner by the respondent/complainant for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there is no material to show that there exists a legal debt or liability and for the discharge of the same, the cheque was issued and that therefore, the petitioner ought to have been discharged by the trial court.3. I do not agree with the above contention on two grounds. Firstly, according to the complaint, the petitioner borrowed a loan of Rs.1,25,000 on 28.12.97 and towar...
Murugesan and Others Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Semban ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3430; 1999(1)CTC591
ORDER1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners/ accused in a murder case in S.C.No. 39 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam to transfer the case to some other court.2. The facts contained in the affidavits and the counter affidavits filed by the parties depict a sorry state of affairs.3. The alleged murder took place at Thiruvarur on 24.9.1996. The chargesheet was filed against the petitioners accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against A1 to A4 and 304 r/w 149 I.P.C. against A5 and A6. After committal, the charges were framed against the petitioners/accused and the case was posted for trial by the Principal Sessions Judge on 23.4.1998. The petitioners/accused were present on 23.4.1998. However, P.Ws.l and 2 were not present in the court. Therefore, the said case was adjourned to 9.6.1998 for trial, on which date also the witnesses were not present. So, at the request of the Public Prosecutor ...
M. Arumugham Vs. Mrs. Alagammai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC555; (1999)IIMLJ552
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973, herein after referred to as the Act. The tenant is the Revision Petitioner. The respondent landlady initiated proceedings under Sec. 10(2)(1) of the Act for his eviction alleging that he had committed wilful default in the payment of rent from January 1995 till January 1996 and had become liable to be evicted. Her case as set out in the R.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1996 before the Rent Controller, Karaikudi was as follows:The revision petitioner became a tenant under her in respect of the property belonging to her bearing Door No. 82, Muthupattinam II Street, Karaikudi Nagar for a monthly rent of Rs. 60 computed according to the English Calendar month. He was a chronic defaulter. He was paying rent till October 1992. Thereafter taking advantage of her helplessness started creating evidence as if he had sent the rents. He filed R.C.O.P.No. 25 of...
P. Prakasamurthy Vs. P. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC698; (1999)IIMLJ618
ORDER1. The landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 31 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore is the revision petitioner. The tenant in that proceeding is the respondent herein. Eviction was sought for on two grounds namely, demolition and reconstruction and owners occupation of a non-residential building. On merits, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds. The tenant appealed in R.C.A.No.161 of 1990 before the Appellate Authority, Coimbatore and the said appeal was allowed on merits. Hence the present revision before this court at the instance of the landlord. 2. I heard Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. Jagadeesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in this revision. The appellate authority had allowed the appeal filed by the tenant holding that the requirement of the landlord on the ground of owners occupation of a non-residential building in the occupation of the tenant is hit by Section 19 of the Tam...
Susila Ammal Vs. Indiraniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC78
ORDER1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.329 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, for recovery of possession of the suit properties on the following averments.2. The suit properties along with other properties belonged to one Krishnammal. She executed a will under Ex.A.1 on 9.5.1952 bequeathing her properties to her sister Govindammal till her life time and after her life time the A, B and C schedule properties would respectively devolve on Rajamanickam Naidu, Packirisamy Naidu and Rajamani Ammal and their heirs. There was a further clause that the properties should not be alienated. In case Packirisamy Naidu died issueless, the properties bequeathed to him would revert to the heirs of the other two legatees. The appellant was the wife of Packirisamy and the respondent was the daughter of Rajamanickam, Packirisamy having died issueless on 16.10.1993, the appellant had not surrendered possession of the property bequeathed to Packir...
Natasha Singh and ors. Vs. Klen and Marshalls Manufactures and Exporte ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas538(Mad); 1999CriLJ2693
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. J. K. Singh, the petitioner in Crl. O. P. Nos. 16109 to 16111 of 1998, who is the chairman and authorised signatory of Mid East (India) Limited, MESCO Towers, New Delhi (A-1), is the second accused in C. C. Nos. 729 to 731 of 1997 on the file of the XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.2. Mrs. Rita Singh, the petitioner in Crl. 0. P. Nos. 18364 to 18366 of 1998, who is the managing director of M/s. Mid East (India) Limited, MESCO Towers, New Delhi (A-1), is the third accused in C. C. Nos. 7379, 7380 and 7378 of 1996 on the file of the XlVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.3. Natasha Singh and R. K. Gupta, the petitioners in Crl. 0. P. Nos. 4108 and 4109 of 1997, who are the director and general manager, respectively, of M/s. Mid East (India) Limited, MESCO Towers, New Delhi (A-1), are the fourth and fifth accused in C. C. Nos. 7379 and 7380 of 1996 on the file of the XlVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.4. Since a common question i...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »