Chennai Court July 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.
S. Rajendran Vs. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC4; 2000(67)ECC499
ORDERJudgement pronounced by N.K. Jain, J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.4.1999 in W.P.No.4993 of 1999 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition seeking to quash order dated 19.2.1999 on the ground of delay.2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this writ appeal as alleged, are that the petitioner S.Rajendran is the proprietor of M/s.Sterling Exchange Corporation. He is also the Managing Director of M/s.Goodluck Forex (I) Ltd.A computer with data particulars and cash of Rs.16 lakhs were seized on a search conducted in the office of the petitioner on 22.12.1997. The petitioner was arrested on 23.2.1998 and remanded to judicial custody. It is alleged that he filed W.P.No.1909 of 1998, for quashing the proceedings dated 18.6.1998 whereunder the time limit for retaining the documents seized, was extended. Another W.P.No.1910 of 1999 was filed for the return of seized currency of Rs.16 lakhs. It is also alleged that W.P.No.6184 of 199...
Vasanth Alias S. Vasanth Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ772
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The petitioner himself is a detenu. He was detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) hereinafter called Act 14 of 1982 by order dated 29-10-98 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. In support of this order, a number of grounds have been suggested wherein it is suggested that while the said person was residing along with one Sengottaian, he committed the murder of Annapoornam, wife of Sengottaian on or about 21-11-1996 along with two other accused persons. It is practically on the basis of this case alone that order is passed. It is stated that a confession has been made by one Vinothkumar alias Vinoth and on that basis, the petitioner Vasanth alias Vasanthkumar came to be arrested an...
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Thangaraj a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ715; (1999)3MLJ708
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is the appellant herein.2. Challenging the award directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 59,067 payable to the claimant, respondent No. 1 herein, this appeal has been presented before this court.3. The claimant, Thangaraj, was working as a cleaner at the relevant period. On 9.12.89, he was travelling as a cleaner in the lorry bearing registration No. TNW 6946 belonging to one Mani, the respondent No. 2 herein. The said lorry was proceeding towards Mennandai from Pararnakudi at Madurai Mandapam Main Road. While so, near Vagaikulam bus-stop, the driver of the said lorry in which the claimant was travelling as a cleaner, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the rear side of another lorry bearing registration No. MDM 5045 which was also proceeding towards Mennandai. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Then he was taken to the hospital. Initially, he took treatment in a Government...
R. Chandran Vs. the Additional Director General of Police, Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ264
ORDERA.C. Agarwal, C.J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner, who is a Head Constable seeks to impugned an order passed by the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dated 7.1.1998 dismissing his O.A.No. 1661 of 1997. By the aforesaid O.A. the petitioner had impugned an order of suspension issued against him pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. By the impugned order, the order of suspension has been maintained and the aforesaid O.A. has been dismissed.2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has brought to our notice an order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 911 of 1997 which was filed by one P. Krishnamoorthy, Sub-Inspector of Police. On facts which are practically identical to the facts arising in the present case, aforesaid O.A.No. 911 of 1997 filed by the aforesaid P. Krishnamoorthy was allowed and the order of suspension passed against the said P. Krishnamoorthy has been revoked. Both the petitioner in the present case as also P. Krishnamoorth...
S.P. Narayanaswamy and anr. Vs. Kumaraiya thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1570; (1999)3MLJ699
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The appellants are the claimants, the parents of the deceased. For the death of the deceased due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the respondent No. 2, insured with the respondent No. 3, the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking for the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.2. The Tribunal after enquiry concluded that the claimants would be entitled to only Rs. 15,000 holding that the driver of the lorry was negligent.3. This award is the subject-matter of challenge before this court in this appeal on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum.4. The deceased in this case was aged about 14 years at the time of the accident. He was studying in VIII Std. in Sakthi Vidya Bhavan School at Erode. On 12.9.1987 at about 12.30 hours at Vasuki Street in Erode, the deceased boy was standing with his bicycle. At that point of time, the lorry belonging to the respondent No. 2, which was driven by the driver, respondent No. 1, came in ...
EdwIn Alex Vs. Syndicate Bank, Karingal Branch Rep. by Its Branch Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC623; (1999)3MLJ108
ORDER1. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 2.11.1995 made in E.A.No. 78 of 1993 in E.P.No. 28 of 1987 in O.S.No. 78 of 1976 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, thereby allowing an application filed by the respondent under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 265 days caused in filing the petition to restore the Execution Petition dismissed for default. 2. A glance at the affidavit filed in support of the petition reveals that on behalf of the petitioner before the Execution Court, the Syndicate Bank, Karingal Branch, represented by its Branch Manager, it would be contended that the above Execution Petition was posted for arguments after many hearings and on 21.4.1992, when it was called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and hence the said Execution Petition was dismissed for default, about which the petitioner came to know only on 6.1.1993 through the Advocate's Clerk and...
Subramanian and Three Others Vs. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC52; (1999)3MLJ216
Judgment Pronounced by V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 15.4.1996 made in I.A.No. 595 of 1996 in O.S.No. 129 of 1995 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore in so far dismissing an application filed under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code pleading thereby to grant leave for reception of the additional written statement filed therewith. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is contented that they found that necessary particulars and clarifications in respect of the prior proceedings were to be given in full; that they have to put forward the plea of res judicata and estoppel with reference to the facts of the case, in which even no prejudice will be caused to the other side also and hence praying for leave to be granted to receive the additional written statement filed therewith. 3. The respondent has also filed his counter stating thereby that the additional written s...
Balasundaran Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(67)ECC30; 1999(113)ELT785(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Appellants are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 22 of 1996 on the file of the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Chennai and they were found guilty under Section 8(c) read with 21 of N.D.P.S. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-each in default to undergo R.I. for two years each. The sentence already undergone is set off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. The second accused has preferred C.A. No. 314 of 1997, the third accused has preferred C.A. No. 288 of 1997 and the first and the fourth accused have preferred C.A. No. 526 of 1997, aggrieved against the same judgment of conviction dated 31-5-1997.2. The case in brief is as follows : -The Inspector of Police, N.I.B. C.I.D., Chennai has laid the charge sheet against these accused stating that on 3-11-1995 at 16.30 hours near the main entrance of Thiruvalluvar Bus Transport Corporation bus stand, Parrys, Chennai, Al was found in possession of 2 kgs. of heroin and the oth...
K. Gopal Vs. Management, Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1462
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Gopal, the appellant herein was employed as a conductor under the Management, Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., Madurai, the respondent No. 2 herein.2. On 22.3.1986, the bus belonging to the respondent No. 2 met with an accident, as a result of which the conductor, the appellant herein during the course of his employment sustained serious injuries. He was hospitalised in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai initially and, thereafter, an operation was conducted in Christian Mission Hospital, Madurai, where his left patella was removed.3. On finding that he became unfit to work as a conductor, he was discharged from the service. Thereafter, he was employed as a junior attender. After joining the said post, the appellant filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai seeking for compensation of Rs. 80,059.80, since he became totally disabled from working as a conductor due to the injuries sustained in the accident during the course of his empl...
Selvaraju Vs. S.H. Officer, Nettapakkam Police Station, Nettapakkam, P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC641
ORDER1. Petition filed by 'B' party under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in M.C.No,32/99 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry.2. The case in brief is as follows:The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry passed an order under section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure on 18.3.99. The petitioner is the 'B' party and the 2nd respondent is the 'A' party. The Sub Divisional Magistrate failed to see that 'A' had already been advised to go to Civil Court. 'B' party had already constructed a house on the land. When once possession is admitted to be with 'B' party, there cannot be any proceeding under section 145 Crl.P.C. There was no application of mind on the part of the authority to pass the impugned order.3. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent contented that there was breach of peace and because of this only, the authority was constrained to pass an order under section 145 Cr.P.C.4. Heard the learned counsel of both sides....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »