Chennai Court April 1999 Judgments
Savitry Sivalingappa and Fifteen Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC452
ORDER1. The writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorarjfied mandamusto call for the records of the second respondent regarding Stop Work Noticeand quash the same and forbear the respondents from proceeding further withinitiating any demolition or interference with the respective petitioner'sconstruction at the respective premises.2. As the facts in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, the following common order is passed.3. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners are Private Limited Companies doing the business and in other writ petitions, the petitioners have constructed farm houses in East Coast Road. Aggrieved by the demolitionnotices issued by the respondents, to demolish the construction put up unauthorisedly without the required planning permission, the present writ petitions are filed to quash the demolition notices issued on different dates.4. In all the cases, learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that thepetitioners did not choose to const...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Subbiah Vs. S. Nandappan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC512
ORDER1. These two revisions arise under the following circumstances:The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. In this order hereafterwards, the parties to the two revisions will be referred to as the landlords and the tenant. The landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 105 of 1989 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The landlords also filed R.C.O.P. No. 106 of 1989 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of additional accommodation. Both the cases are governed under the provisions of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller ordered eviction in both the cases on merits. The tenant filed Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 7 of 1991 and 9 of 1991 before the Appellate Authority, Pondicherry. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeals on merits. C.R.P. No. 806 of 1995 is directed against the order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 105 of 1989 and C.R.P. No. 807 of 1995 is directed ag...
Tag this Judgment!Nepc India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas500(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The petitioners in E. O. C. C. No. 9 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences, Egmore, have filed Crl. O. P. No. 1121 of 1999. The petitioners in E. O. C. C. No. 461 of 1998, the petitioners in E. O. C. C. No. 455 of 1998, the petitioners in E. O. C. C. No. 301 of 1998 and the petitioners in E. O. C. C. No. 167 of 1998 on the file of the same court have preferred the Criminal Original Petitions Nos. 1114, 1119, 1120 and 2220 of 1999 respectively under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings pending against them.2. The case in brief for disposal of all the petitions is as follows :The petitioners in Crl. O. P. No. 1121 of 1999 are accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 in E. O. C. C, No. 9 of 1997. The respondent preferred a complaint against them under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the allegation that one S.R. Gupta, through a letter dated May 10, 1996, complained to the office of the...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Shamala and Vs. Kundan S. Bhayani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad441; (1999)3MLJ74
1. Defendants 1 and2inC.S. No. 551 of 1983 on the file of this Court are the appellants herein.2. The suit filed by respondents was one for recovery of money by sale of mortgage properties.3. It is the case of plaintiffs that as per Exs. P3 to P15 Promissory notes, defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- agreeing to pay the same wi'th 21 % interest. As collateral security, properties belonging to first defendant was also mortgaged by deposit of title deeds. It is their further case that even though defendants agreed to discharge the entire debt within a period of 180 days, they could not settle the transaction. A reply was sent as per Ex. P2 wherein they disputed the allegation that there is deposit of title deeds with an intention to create mortgage and it is also contended that P. W. 1 Shantilal Bhayani obtained signatures only in blank papers, blank stamp papers etc. and it is further contended that with the plaintiffs they have no money transaction.4. The suit was therefore all...
Tag this Judgment!Color Grove Printers and Designers (P) Ltd. Vs. E.S.i. Corporation and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1206Mad
V. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in RN.INS/III 51-36259-34, dated November 28, 1991, and also the second respondent's consequently proceedings No. FSS/MDS 455, 456, 457 of 1990, dated November 20, 1990, and quash the order of the respondent2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein, they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for, Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of the merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpatti Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1506Mad
K. Sampath, J.1. The writ petitioner is the same in all thepetitions being Kalapatti Spinning Mills(Private) Ltd., Coimbatore, while the secondrespondent in each of the writ petitions isdifferent. However, the question arising forconsideration in all the writ petitions being thesame, the writ petitions are disposed of by thefollowing common order. 2, The grievance of the writ-petitioner is that the first respondent Labour Court while taking up the issue whether the question as to the maintainability of the industrial disputes has to be taken as a preliminary issue or not has decided the main industrial disputes themselves and this is erroneous.3.The allegations common to the writ petitions are as under:The writ-petilioner-company formed in 1989 purchased the land and building at Kalapatti where a textile unit was functioning in the name of Sri Padma Textiles, which was closed sometime in 1980. After purchase the writ-petitioner installed new machines and started running the mill from 1...
Tag this Judgment!Mayila Vs. Muthupalaniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ127
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mayila, the petitioner herein is the tenant. Muthupalaniappan, the respondent herein is the landlord.2. The landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 1992 of the file of the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Devakottai seeking for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of monthly rent. The Rent Controller on taking into consideration oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides concluded that the tenant was liable to be evicted on the said ground. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which in turn confirmed the view of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. On being aggrieved, the tenant has preferred this revision.3. According to the landlord, the respondent herein, the tenant committed wilful default in payment of the rent from December 1991 to June 1992.4. According to the petitioner/tenant, immediately on receipt of the notice dated 2.7.1992 the petitioner s...
Tag this Judgment!T.T. Girirajan Vs. the Inspector of Police, G1, Madhavaram Police Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC213
ORDER1. This petition is to produce the vehicle seized by the Investigating Officer into court. The petition has arisen in this way.2. The petitioner is the Regional Manager of a carrier known as M/S.Savani Carrying Private Limited. On 8.10.97, the petitioner engaged lorry TDT 6360 belonging to one Ganesan to carry 640 cartons of cosmetics manufactured by Ponds India Limited from Pondicherry to Madhavaram. On the way, 43 cartons of cosmetics were stolen, regarding which Bakthavatsalam, the driver of the lorry gave a complaint to the Acharapakkam Police, who registered a case in Crime No.623 of 1997 under section 379, IPC. Later, it came to light that the owner of the lorry and thedriver have committed theft of part of the consignment. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a complaint in Crime No. 1126 of 1997 before Madhavaram Police. The inspector of police, Madhavaram seized the lorry, but he had failed to produce the same into court. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotiyur directed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Asif Vs. State Rep. by Additional Superintendent of Police, Q ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC418
ORDER1. Both these Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are filed by Thiru Mohd. Asif, who is the fourth accused both in C.C.NO. 4 of 1997 and C.C.No. 13 of 1997 on the file of the XIIIAdditional City Civil Judge and Special Judge, Chennai-1, praying for the transfer of those cases to any other Special Judge of competent jurisdiction.2. Though the relief sought for namely transfer of the cases from the court to another comes within the narrow compass, detailed and elaborate arguments were advanced.3. Facts:The investigation of crime No. 17 of 96 led into the filing of three cases C.C.Nos. 4 of 1997, 13 of 1997 and 14 of 1997 before the XIII Additional City Civil Judge and Special and Sessions Judge, Chennai. The broad allegation is that the petitioner, while he was a Minister for Rural Industries, had conspired with the other accused in under-valuing the Government property and selling them. The trial in C.C.No. 14 of 1997 has already commenced. The c...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Bai Vs. Inspector Civil Supply C.i.D., North Unit, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3560; 1999(2)CTC385
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The question, which has been referred to us for decision, appears in the referring order as follows:'That two rulings by Benches consisting of equal number of Judges when cannot be reconciled and the consequences of non- prosecution are detrimental to the public interest, how to reconcile and ward off the evil consequences of non-prosecution on public justice system.'This question has arisen in a criminal appeal which has been filed by accused Ganga Bai who has been convicted by the Special Judge for offences under Clause 6 (2) (3) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, (herein after called as 'the order') read with section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months as also topay fine of Rs.500 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The said accused was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »