Chennai Court March 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.
Annamalai Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad420
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent-Board to treat the sanctioned maximum load of the petitioner's Mill as 1350 K.V.A. with effect from 1-7-1995, and refund to the petitioner whatever the excess sum the respondent-Board collected from the petitioner, for any period, after 1-7-1995, taking such load at any higher figure.2. Brief facts are :Petitioner-Mill, having obtained electricity service connection, bearing H.T.S.C. No. 30, for a sanctioned load of 1750 K.V.A. are paying electricity charges every month for the entire 1750 K.V.A. even though they have not consumed the maximum sanctioned load of 1750 K.V.A. at any point of time. Therefore, the petitioner by letter dated 6-6-1995 informed the respondent-Board that they have not exceeded 1350 K.V.A. at any point of time and surrendered 400 K.V.A. Since the respondent-Board failed to record the surrender of 400 K.V.A. in spite of the request of the petitioner by their letter 6-6-1995, pe...
Arumugham Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Namagiri Petta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC725; 2000(67)ECC61
ORDER1. The petitioner stands charged for offence under section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.10.1999, the petitioner was found in possession of one Kilogram of Ganja. He was arrested on 21.1.19993. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of Section 42 and 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act have not been followed.4. Perused C.D. file. It appears, Sub-Inspector of police of Namagiri Pettai along with his party was patrolling in Chinnakakkveri Vellakkalpatty Road, he came across the petitioner and the petitioner was found in possession of one kilogram of Ganja. It appears, the Sub-Inspector of Police himself arrested the petitioner and seized the Ganja. It cannot be said that the Sub-Inspector of Police had not followed the mandatory provision of Section 42(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, because he has sent the copy the F.I.R. to his Superior Officer. But...
K.R. Santharam Vs. the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC518
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the notice of the respondent dated 31.7.95, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various ground.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- He is the owner of the premises bearing door No.9, Sowrashtra High School East Lane, Madras-9. As per the original assessment, the property tax for the said premises was Rs.847.14 per half year, in the year 1972 the tax was enhanced to Rs.2,751.84 per half year. He filed a suit O.S.No.413 of 1972 on the file of District Munsif, Madurai Town for a declaration that the assessment and levy of enhancement of tax is illegal and void. The said suit was decreed on31.1.73. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. The said judgment and decree have become final. The respondent issued a special notice enhancing the tax to Rs.3993 per half year on 28.12.76. The petitioner filed another suit O.S.No.276 of 1977 before the District Munsif 's Court, Madurai. Though the said suit was ini...
Workmen (Represented by General Secretary, Presiding Officer E.i.D. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ588Mad
T. Meenakumari, J.1. Writ Petition No. 12398 of 1989 is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent relating to I.D. No. 320 of 1984 to quash the preliminary award, dated February 4, 1987, in full read with the award, dated December 30, 1998, of the First Additional Labour Court, Madras, in I.D. No. 320 of 1984 filed and marked as Exhibit A inasmuch as it has held that the reference of the dispute relating to K. Veerappan was bad and unsustainable and has denied back wages to Balasubramanian, Yesudaian, Pazhamalai and Subbarayan and consequently direct the second respondent the reinstatement of K. Veerappan with back wages, continuity of service and all other benefits and direct the payment of full back-wages and other benefits in the case of Veerappan, V. Balasubramanian, Yesudaian, Subbarayan and Pazhamalai.2. W.P No. 5889 of 1989 is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records in I.D. No. 320 of 1984 from the file...
S. Muthusaravanan Vs. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Housin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ188
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondent dated 8.8.1991, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: While he was serving as secretary of Avinashi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, he was temporarily suspended by the Respondent on 16.11.1990. Thereafter he was informed that charge-sheet would be served on him separately. He was served with a charge sheet dated 21.11.1990 containing 9 charges under the head of dereliction of responsibilities etc. He sent his detailed objections dated 14.12.1990. Thereafter, he received a communication calling upon him why he should not be removed from service on account of dereliction of duty and non-observance of the directions given by the superiors. He sent his reply on 16.1.1991. However, the respondent constituted an enquiry on 27.3.1991 and appointed one Murugesan, an advocate of Coimbatore Bar as Enquiry officer....
Seeniammal Alias Indirani Vs. Piramasankari Alias Kamalam and 7 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC13; (1999)IIMLJ440
ORDERJudgement pronounced by N.K. Jain, A.C.J.1. This reference has been referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 1499 of 1985 and had come before us.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the reference are: One Murugesan Pillai executed a promissory note. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount due on the said promissory note against the legal representatives of the said Murugesan Pillai, since died. The suit was resisted stating that the suit filed was time barred. It was further pleaded that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 13 of 1980)3. The trial Court on consideration held that the suit is not time barred and that the defendants have property worth more than Rs. 25,000 and that they are not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. On an appeal, filed by the defendants, the finding regarding execution of the decree was ...
Lakshmi Aachi and Another Vs. Parvathi Achi (Died) Alagappa Chettiar ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC40; (1999)IIMLJ433
ORDERJudgement pronounced by N.K.Jain, A.C J.1. This matter has been referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.No. 139 of 1987, and had come before us.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the reference are:It is alleged that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit alleging that the first appellant/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 promising to re-pay the same with interest @ 15% per annum and executed the suit mortgage deed, on 30.5.1960, in respect of the plaint schedule property on behalf of herself andas guardian of her minor son, the second appellant/defendant. It is submitted that some amount, accrued interest, has been re-paid. But, despite repeated demand, the balance has not been settled. Hence, the plaintiff/respondent filed suit for recovery.3. The suit was resisted by defendants one and two. First defendant admitted the execution of the mortgage deed and contended that she is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 4...
Saroja and 3 Others Vs. Gopal and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: 1999ACJ1103; [2001]106CompCas666(Mad); 1999(2)CTC37; (1999)IIMLJ436
ORDERJudgement pronounced by N.K. Jain A.C.J.1. This matter was referred to by a Division Bench of this court on thefollowing question of law: 'Whether on the transfer/sale of the vehicle, the policy of insurance issued already in favour of the transferor/seller, in the absence of intimation about such transfer, lapses and the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability.'2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the said reference are: On 3.3.1981, while travelling in a van bearing Registration No. TMQ 257, four persons met with an accident, as the said van dashed against the stationery lorry. The Tribunal awarded compensation fastending liability on the first respondent owner. The tribunal came to the conclusion following the decision of a Division Bench in Hema Ramaswami v. K.M. Valarance Panjani, : (1981)1MLJ0182 . The matter, on appeal, heard in extenso. The Bench considered various aspects made by Mr.V. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. In Dharman a...
S. Udayakumar Vs. the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madurai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC618; (1999)3MLJ138
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records of respondents resultingin the impugned order of the first respondent in CMA (CS) No. 184 of 1991, dated 7.10.1993 confirming the order of the second respondent in ARC.No. 77 of 91-92, dated 27.6.1991 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and pass such further or other orders as the Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of case and thus render justice.2. Petitioner joined third respondent Co-operative Society as Sales Assistant in the year 1975. Thereafter, he was appointed as Branch Manager in the year 1976, which post he still holds.3. Petitioner was Branch Manager at Nagore II from 1.9.1988 to 31.5.1989. During this period certain allegations have been made against petitioner. The allegation was that he had sold 1237 bags of wheat in the open market without distributing same to Societies. An enquiry was conducted under Sectio...
Umakandhan Vs. P.M.A.N. Beema Raja Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad265
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The defendant in O. S. No. 26/96 on the file of District Munsif, Virudhunagar is the revision petitioner. An amendment prayed for by the plaintiff in I.A. No. 641/96, the details of which will be given later in this order, was allowed by the learned trial Judge. Questioning the correctness of the same, the defendant is before this Court.2.1 heard Mr. N. Damodaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Somasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. The suit is laid on a promissory note. The defendant in the short cause title of the plaint is shown as T.M.T. Nagarathinam and Co. by N. Umakandhan, Partner. In the long cause title of the plaint the defendant is described as Umakandhan, son of Nagarajan, residing at No. 71, South Car Street, Virudhunagar. The defendant in his written statement had stated that it is only T.M.M.T. Nagarajan and son had borrowed amounts from one Beemarajan and Co. and N. B. Padmavathi and Co. and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »