Chennai Court May 1999 Judgments
K. Radha Krishnan Vs. Thirumani Asphalts and Felts (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1999
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas658(Mad)
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J.1. In both the petitions, the petitioner is invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to call for the records in STC No. 3011 of 1993 and STC No. 2470 of 1993, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore, and sot aside the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl. R. P. Nos. 63 and 64 of 1995. Both the petitions have arisen in this way :The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has five directors of whom the petitioner holds 20 per cent, of the subscribed capital. The petitioner's father was also a director. He held another 20 per cent, of the subscribeci capital. After the demise of his father, the petitioner holds 40 per cent, of the subscribed capital. The other four directors of the company are in enimical terms with the petitioner. In order to get rid of the petitioner from the company they created false record to the effect that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Sathianathan Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4710
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The accused in Special Case No. 2 of 1992 on the file of Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai has preferred the appeal aggrieved against the conviction and sentence imposed on him, wherein he was found guilty under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and he was also found guilty under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently by the judgment dated 7-2-95.2. The case in brief for disposal of the appeal is as follows :P.W.I Maharajan is working as an Assistant in the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kandarvakottai. One Sampath is also working as an Assistant in the same office. Both of them went to the Office of the Vigilance at Pudukottai on 28-1-91 at about 10.3...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhrajmal Sugarmal Lunkad, Proprietor, Lunkad Finance, Hereinafter, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ598
P. Thangavel, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,27,500 with interest at 16.50 per cent annum and for costs.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the suit, are as follows:The 2nd defendant, who is carrying on business as film producers at Madras, approached the plaintiff for advancement of loan of Rs. 10 lakhs for their business. The 1st defendant, which is a subsidiary branch of State Bank of Mysore at Madras, agreed to provide Bank guarantee for repayment of the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest on behalf of the 2nd defendant. Accordingly a bank guarantee dated 4.4.1986 was executed by the 1st defendant for Rs. 10 lakhs for repayment of the principal and interest with 161/2 per cent per annum at Madras in favour of the plaintiff for a period of one year from the date of advancement of loan by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant. The bank guarantee can be invoked by the plaintiff within the stipulated time if the 2nd defendant failed and neglected...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›