Chennai Court April 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.
Vijayakumari R. and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ833Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since the subject-matter involved in all these cases and also the respondents are common all these writ petitions have been taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. The petitioners herein have filed these writs invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in award dated April 17, 1989, in I.D. No. 172 of 1985 and two others passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.3. In support of their writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavit wherein they have stated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow their writ petitions as prayed for. Though no counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued the matter and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss these writ peti...
Sivakumar R. and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Iii Additional Labour Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ644Mad
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since the subject matter involved in all these cases and also the respondents are common, all these writ petitions have been taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. The petitioners herein have filed these writs invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Award dated April 17, 1989 in I.D.No. 172 of 1985 and two others passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.3. In support of their writ petitions, the petitioner herein have filed separate affidavits wherein they have stated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow their writ petitions as prayed for. Though no counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent argued the matter and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss these writ pe...
C.K.P. Memmon and ors. Vs. K.P. Sulaiman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ221
ORDERB. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. The counter petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 before the Executive Magistrate have come forward with the instant Criminal R. C.2. This criminal revision has arisen in this (sic) One Ibrahim had a first wife. Through her, he had a son by name Aboobacker. Ibrahim married one Kadeessu as the second wife. On 31-1-1953 Ibrahim executed a sale alienating the disputed property in favour of his second wife Kadeessu. Ibrahim died during 1958. Aboobacker was looking after the affairs of Kadeesu, and managed and maintained the properties. Aboobacker appears to have created some documents in favour of the first respondent herein by name Sulaiman. Sulaiman had obtained a Bogus possession certificate from the Tashildar and he claims possession of the disputed properties.3. Petitioners one to three herein are the children of Kadeesu. Petitioners 1 to 3 herein were living in a rented house elsewhere. Since the landlord wanted them to vacate the property they constructed a resid...
P. Jagadeesan Vs. the Commissioner, Pondicherry Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ704
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the suspension order No. PM/Estt/ 1.148A1/90, dated 22.8.1990 issued by the respondent after calling for concerned records from him and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full salary and with all other attendant benefits from 26.10.1987 with penal interest.2. In this case, notice of motion was ordered on 27.11.1997. When the matter came up for admission on 21.4.1999, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought the leave of this Court to amend the prayer as different charges have been framed on the delinquent by the respondent municipality in W.M.P. No. 7063 of 1999. The prayer in the W.M.P. No. 7063 of 1999 is as follows:to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the Memorandum No. PM/EStt.1-249/A1, dated 28.1.1988 read with Memo No. PM/Estt/1-145/Al/90, dated 22.8.1990 read with the suspension order NO. PM/Estt. 1-1...
Tamil Nadu Motors Represented by Gowtham Vs. N. Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ29
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Tamil Nadu Motors, represented by Gowtham, the petitioner herein is the tenant. Aggrieved over the order of the Appellate Authority ordering eviction of the petitioner by reversing the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the petition for eviction filed by Lakshmi the landlady, the respondent herein, the present civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.2. The landlady, the respondent herein filed a petition under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for evicting the tenant from the petition premises on the grounds of wilful default and of keeping the petition premises under lock and key. The Rent Controller on consideration of the evidence oral and documentary adduced by both the parties, rejected those grounds holding that there is no wilful default and the premises was not kept locked. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. After hearing t...
Venkatesh Vs. Commission of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN78(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J.Though the assessees are different, the assessment year is also the substantial question referred to us at the instance of the assessees and being common these references are being disposed of by a common order. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the question referred to us is as to whether any part of the sale consideration received by them for the sale of their shares in Anglo French Textiles Ltd. and Best & (Pondicherry) (P.) Ltd. is to be excluded for the computation of long-term capital gains on the ground that part of the consideration does not represent the value of the shares sold but constitutes the consideration, for the sale of right to control the company with the aid of the shares sold.2. The shares held in these two companies by one or the other of these assessees who are all members of the family of one C.R. Rajendran were agreed to be sold by them and others with the said Rajendran acting on their behalf to one Ganesh Narayan Jattiya under an agreement...
Devarajan Vs. the State Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Prohibiti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC175
ORDERJudgment pronounced by V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The petitioner is the friend of the detenu, viz., Olimaran who has been detained by the second respondent under Act 14 of 1982 after identifying him as 'boot-legger'. The detenu had come into adverse notice of the authorities in four cases. It is not necessary for us to stale the facts in detail since the writ will have to be allowed on the ground of non- furnishing the proper translation copies to the detenu. 2. It is alleged in the ground case that while the detenu was found selling distilled arrack, the police arrested him and recovered the contraband on 23.6.1998 and that after the seizure of the contraband, the remaining arrack was destroyed. Thereafter, a case was registered in Cr.No.365 of 1998 under Section 4(1)(i) r/w, 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Basing upon the materials, the second respondent has come to the conclusion that the detenu is a boot-legger and thereupon, the impugned order is passed. 3. Mr.S.K...
National Insurance Company Ltd., TuticorIn Vs. Smt. Maisy Alex, and 5 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1403; AIR1999Mad333; 1999(2)CTC206; (1999)IIMLJ628
ORDER1. National Insurance Company is the appellant in both the appeals. The Insurance Company is challenging its liability. Since the issue is one and thesame in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. First I shall take up C.M.A. No. 903 of 1992, which is filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Judge), Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P. No. 65 of 1990 wherein respondents 1 to 3 herein have secured an award for Rs. 2,92,352 in their favour. C.M.A, No. 402 of 1992 is against M.C.O.P. No. 145 of 1990 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Dindigul wherein the first respondent herein secured an award of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation.3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.4. The only point for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the award amount in the absence of special endorsement for driving tourist car in the driving licence of the driver con...
Radhika Purushothaman and anr. Vs. Kala Manivannan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas782(Mad)
Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. The petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings in E.P. No. 17 of 1998 in O.P. No. 320 of 1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Madras.2. This petition has arisen in this way :The first respondent filed O. P. No, 320 of 1996, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Madras, against the petitioners herein, for refund of certain sum of money, The redressal forum passed orders on December 13, 1996, whereunder the petitioners were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 14,280 to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation with cost Rs. 500. The petitioners did not make any payment and therefore, the complainant instituted execution proceedings in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. In that E.P., the Consumer Redressal Forum passed orders sentencing the first petitioner to undergo simple impris...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Victoria and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ196; AIR2000Mad245
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This C.M.A. has beenpreferred against the award dated 9-12-1996 in O.P. No. 1215 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Chief Judge, Small Causec Court, Chennai. The matter relates to claim for Rs. 10,22,000/- for the loss of life of one Dhanaraj caused in a motor accident on 9-10-1993. The wife and minor son have preferred the claim.2. The 1st respondent in the said O.P. in the counter contested that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. Another important defence was that the vehicle should not be used for any purpose other than agriculture. The vehicle should not be used for carrying goods as per condition No. 10 in the policy. As the vehicle was used for different purpose viz. for carrying goods, the liability of the appellant is not there.3. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle meant for carrying goods. Insurance company was held to be definitely liable. The Tribunal rejected ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »